That formula isn't good for anything when the discussion is at this level of precision.Ruby60 said:AC - Granted that there is some fatigue but this was "only" stage 10. I don't know what the previous days were like.. maybe even a rest day,
If I use the most rudimentary formula from determing a max heart rate (220-age), I get a max HR of 192. Now I'd bet that his actual Max HR is much higher, after all,
Varies by individual. You'd think that more beats were better, but it just doesn't work like that.Ruby60 said:he is an endurance trained athlete...200bpm?
For me and others who were using HR monitors way back when that was high-tech, fatigue generally lowered maximum heart rate. So, if my experience is any indicator 12-15% seems reasonable.Ruby60 said:So he decreased his max HR by 12-15% after just 10 days?
Because he clearly compared apples to oranges to give Armstrong the green light. Some guy climbing Mt. Faron didn't do it after hours of maximal efforts day after day for a week or more.darwin553 said:How should Grappe's opinion on Armstrong and Froome be treated the same?
10% compared to the Vuelta if you go from 405W to 445W. Of course, if we knew his power output in the first TT of the Tour, this would be easy to determine. We don't, so we're just left to speculate on his current power.jw1979 said:i don't see how you guys are claiming he's gotten 10-20% stronger. if it's based on froome's own statement of a threshold of 440-460w, i would have to assume froome is referring to threshold as peak power he can sustain for about 30 minutes, which i believe is a typical length of time to view maximal lactate steady state among swimmers.
i have zero problems believing the numbers above based on my own experience. 10% higher would be difficult for me to believe, while 20% would just be insane.
End Diastolic Volume is limited by the pericardium. Cutting the pericardium increases EDV and SV at rest. I am uncertain of the effects during exercise.vrusimov said:Can the right, and principally the left ventricle really stretch so much? When you think about it, unless something similar happens, power reduction following stroke volume vs. heart rate must correlate with ejection fraction. I can imagine increasing fatigue but stroke volume increasing to compensate, causing a super-compensation following a rest period from a grand tour? Would that be right?
Oh please. Give it a rest. Then did Brailsford walk over with the missing data from Baroworld and say it all if good?Race Radio said:This article was front page of l'Equipe, the day of the biggest race of the year.....and it essentially says nothing more then Froome can ride a bike fast. Not sure where the fault lies for this. Were there conditions on what l'Equipe was allowed to publish or did Fred intentionally leave all the important stuff out?
Interesting that Sky waited until after they resigned Froome to release the info. I can understand why they wanted to be vague before the signed him but afterward why not?
I ran into Sean Yates on Alp d'Huez yesterday. Had a nice chat. Froome came up. Sean had not seen the Grappe article but he said many of the same things it said, that he had a huge capacity to train and recover, numbers were stable, etc.
I asked what he thought changed in Froome's training, etc, that led to such huge increase in form after he left Barloworld. Sean said "I have no idea" > He did say Froome used to crash a bunch, always was coming off the bike
Perhaps if we even knew is maximum heart rate. We get 169 from the profile, so it is at least that. Depending on his level of effort at the finish then that figure should be pretty close. Using 170, 85% would put him at 144 bpm, which would be close to his 147 average. I have just never seen working TT heart rates that low for an elite athlete.momotaro said:End Diastolic Volume is limited by the pericardium. Cutting the pericardium increases EDV and SV at rest. I am uncertain of the effects during exercise.
I know AC hypothesizes increases in efficiency. I'll admit that I am not up to date on the latest research, but I am pretty skeptical of this concept explaining significant changes in aerobic performance.
AC: I think that there is something interesting in Froome's hemodynamics. His SV has got to be significantly different that the rest of the pro peloton. It has to be with HR that low. Again I am not suggesting doping, but mearly an interesting study.
Sky froome data release to Grappe blatant PR scam
Certain people say silly things. When we are told that a rider is not able to put out 420 - 430 Watts in a time trial, that is false. Not so long ago, one of the riders with whom I was involved climbed Mont Faron at a power of 400 Watts for 20 minutes, and he is far from being Armstrong. Consequently, I am not astonished that Armstrong or others can produce 460 or 470 Watts on a mountain. It is not impossible."
You are assuming that:taiwan said:Ok.
FTP - CP20 = 60W
FTP - CP20 = ~8% (FTP)
=> ~8% (FTP) = 60W
=> FTP = 60W ÷ 8% = 750W
I believe this must be the link I had found concerning Froome's power-duration curve (which I called power profile yesterday), published I believe soon after the Vuelta 2011.Le breton said:I remember how outraged I was when I read his LA apology in l'Equipe in those days.
I guess he was on LA's payroll as an advisor of some sort.
Anyway, Brailsford would never have shown the data to Vayer, He is much safer with Grappe who seems to always have had trouble with numbers.
Would you by any chance remember where Froome's power profile was shown?.
Either on this website or on a link I found on cyclingnews. I printed it but can't find it.
We have this :
We should all copy it before it disappears from the web.
Thanks for the reply.Alex Simmons/RST said:You are assuming that:
- the 60W differential quoted is between FTP and his 20-minute mean maximal power
- His actual differential is 8%
We don't know if either of these assumptions is valid.
e.g. we don't know if 60-minute max power from the data provided represents his FTP, nor do we know if it contains a maximal 20-minute effort either, but I'd hazard a guess that the latter is more likely than the former.
No, that's what I posted higher up.skimazk said:
Do we know if the data actually contain 20-min maximal and 60-min maximal efforts?taiwan said:Thanks for the reply.
Why would his power during a 20 minute effort not be maximal? Why would his 60 min power be referred to at all if it was not representative of a maximal effort? What percentage difference would you expect in power between the 2 durations?
It makes no sense.
Also his power file for a 59' TT in 2011 is in the public domain, linked in this thread. Not saying it was, but it would be silly if it wasn't considered.
...and what % difference would you expect between the two durations?Alex Simmons/RST said:Do we know if the data actually contain 20-min maximal and 60-min maximal efforts?
All we know is that a comparison between the highest 20-min and 60-min power was made from the data supplied, but we don't know if either or both are actually maximal efforts over those durations. We'd need additional context to make sense of it.
e.g. if a race deciding climb takes 40-minutes, you'll get neither a rider's 20-min nor 60-min maximal power capability from that day's file. Hence the ratio between them may not actually be based on true maximal capability for both durations.
Yes, is there an SRM from anyone in the top20 that day which could be used for a ballpark figure on Froome?Le breton said:2nd TdF ITT 2008
And by 2010 Commonwealth, he is further behind winner David Millar, coming in 5th @ 2:20:Le breton said:No, that's what I posted higher up.
I found several images of cycling news for sept 2011 on the swayback archive but not what I'm looking for.
Also found one good perf in an ITT by Froome before 2011:
2nd TdF ITT 2008
1 Stefan Schumacher (Ger) Gerolsteiner 1.03.50 (49.817 km/h)
2 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 0.21
3 Kim Kirchen (Lux) Team Columbia 1.01
4 Christian Vande Velde (USA) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 1.05
5 David Millar (GBr) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 1.37
6 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 1.55
7 Cadel Evans (Aus) Silence - Lotto 2.05
8 Sebastian Lang (Ger) Gerolsteiner 2.19
9 Bernhard Kohl (Aut) Gerolsteiner 2.21
10 George Hincapie (USA) Team Columbia 2.28
11 Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia 2.29
12 Carlos Sastre Candil (Spa) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 2.34
13 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 2.36
14 Danny Pate (USA) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 2.54
15 Jens Voigt (Ger) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 2.58
16 Christopher Froome (Ken) Barloworld 3.00
17 Amaël Moinard (Fra) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 3.04
18 Kanstantsin Siutsou (Blr) Team Columbia 3.07
19 Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 3.10
20 Joost Posthuma (Ned) Rabobank 3.13