Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[BYOP88]

Gah, no. He changed mid-season, 2011. I've shown conclusively that from the Tour de Suisse (2011) forward to now, he suddenly and permanently received a ~20% increase in FTP. It was not gradual. It was a sudden and permanent shift.

John Swanson

There was some chat in here earlier regarding the Chicken and not the Dawg.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Gah, no. He changed mid-season, 2011. I've shown conclusively that from the Tour de Suisse (2011) forward to now, he suddenly and permanently received a ~20% increase in FTP. It was not gradual. It was a sudden and permanent shift.

John Swanson

It's the Froome thread but we were talking about the "other" great skinny TT'er, Rasmussen.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Or an variate of this. There are many groups focused on this type of product. This particular one was developed about 15 minutes from my house....and about 10 minutes from Chris Horner's

I don't see this as the explanation of the zero muscle mass/high output. It really makes no sense and I know I am far from the only person trying to figure out what is going on.

Duh, electric motors.

 

[Parker]

I don't see this as the explanation of the zero muscle mass/high output. It really makes no sense and I know I am far from the only person trying to figure out what is going on.

The actual force required to pedal at 500W (for example) isn't that great. I can do it, you can do it, most adults (male at least) can do it. Big muscle mass isn't necessary.
What we can't do, is do it for a long time (most for only a very short time). And muscle size has little to do endurance - look at long distance runners, for example.

 

[mikeoneill]

Or an variate of this. There are many groups focused on this type of product. This particular one was developed about 15 minutes from my house....and about 10 minutes from Chris Horner's

I don't see this as the explanation of the zero muscle mass/high output. It really makes no sense and I know I am far from the only person trying to figure out what is going on.

ferrari wondering too.. but he prob knows


http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=139
" Just like Froome, Farah, as well as for the outstanding performances, impresses for the ghastly, unhealthy thinness.
Achieved how...? Only with a particularly strict diet?
This is the question those who care about the physical and mental health of the athletes should try to answer to"

 

[veganrob]

The actual force required to pedal at 500W (for example) isn't that great. I can do it, you can do it, most adults (male at least) can do it. Big muscle mass isn't necessary.
What we can't do, is do it for a long time (most for only a very short time). And muscle size has little to do endurance - look at long distance runners, for example.

Yet Chris Froome is the only one who can do it.

 

[Parker]

Yet Chris Froome is the only one who can do it.

Is he? Because you say so? And only one to do what? That seems like a trite retort with no substance to me.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Is he? Because you say so? And only one to do what? That seems like a trite retort with no substance to me.

Well, Horner can't do it. Bertie could do it before he was popped.

Climb like Froome climbs and TT's like Martin. All at a low 61-62kgs. Happens all the time.

All we need now is for Cancellara to win at l'alpe d'huez and Wigans to crush Paris-Roubaix.

 

[Parker]

Well, Horner can't do it. Bertie could do it before he was popped.

Do what, exactly?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Well, Horner can't do it. Bertie could do it before he was popped.

Climb like Froome climbs and TT's like Martin. All at a low 61-62kgs. Happens all the time.

61-62 kg... interesting. Where was this figure sourced?

 

[Race Radio]

ferrari wondering too.. but he prob knows


http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=139
" Just like Froome, Farah, as well as for the outstanding performances, impresses for the ghastly, unhealthy thinness.
Achieved how...? Only with a particularly strict diet?
This is the question those who care about the physical and mental health of the athletes should try to answer to"

Everyone is wonder. It is the #1 topic when it comes to doping these days. Maybe it is possible to get that skinny withouht losing power naturally but I can't see how they maintain it without getting sick and stay within 1/2kg in the off season

Certainly possible there are advanced methods of weight lose, if so they should package it and sell it

 

[Scott SoCal]

Do what, exactly?

TT like Froome.

 

[Scott SoCal]

61-62 kg... interesting. Where was this figure sourced?

My eyeballs.

 

[Merckx index]

The actual force required to pedal at 500W (for example) isn't that great. I can do it, you can do it, most adults (male at least) can do it. Big muscle mass isn't necessary.
What we can't do, is do it for a long time (most for only a very short time).

Well, I can’t do it. And anyone who can pedal at 500 W for an extended period of time can pedal at a much higher force, like 800-900 watts, for a shorter period of time. Of course it takes muscle mass.

You’re implying, whether you intended to or not, that the main difference between Froome and most anyone else is that he can pedal at a certain relatively accessible force much longer than others can. That’s an oversimplification. There’s no such thing as someone who can maintain his maximal force for a long period of time. Froome, or anyone else who can maintain 500 W for an extended period of time, can put out a far greater force in a shorter period of time.

That’s why he can drop other riders in short bursts. That’s why his watts/kg is higher for a short climb. That’s why Froome, not to mention sprint specialists, can ride much faster at the very end of a stage.

And muscle size has little to do endurance - look at long distance runners, for example.

It would be more accurate to say that muscle size contributes somewhat less to success of endurance runners than it does to runners of shorter distances. To say that it has little to do with success at long distances is, again, an oversimplification.

Of course muscle size matters. That's why TTng ability, other things being equal, is correlated with body mass.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

My eyeballs.

i.e. You just made it up?

 

[Scott SoCal]

i.e. You just made it up?

Yep, I'm guessing. Think I'm wrong?

Let's say I'm off by 10%. The point is still valid.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yep, I'm guessing. Think I'm wrong?

I have no idea. But then I am not the one passing guesswork as fact .

 

[Scott SoCal]

I have no idea. But then I am not the one passing guesswork as fact .

Well, lessee. What did I write;

Climb like Froome climbs and TT's like Martin. All at a low 61-62kgs. Happens all the time.

Looks like I left myself a little wiggle room. Probably suggesting a guess more than a fact.

So, am I wrong on his weight?

 

[Parker]

Well, I can’t do it. And anyone who can pedal at 500 W for an extended period of time can pedal at a much higher force, like 800-900 watts, for a shorter period of time. Of course it takes muscle mass.

Yes you can do it - it's easy. Find some 14 year old boys and put them on a testing rig and ask them to pedal as hard as they can. I bet most of them go over 500W - but it's just a twenty minute burst. 800-900 in 10-20 second burst is fairly standard for a healthy young male too.
My point is the actual forces required are not that big.

It would be more accurate to say that muscle size contributes somewhat less to success of endurance runners than it does to runners of shorter distances. To say that it has little to do with success at long distances is, again, an oversimplification.

Why does it contribute less to distance runners - it's still energy being expended via the legs. Where are the heavy legged distance runners?

Of course muscle size matters. That's why TTng ability, other things being equal, is correlated with body mass.

But does it? Or is this just more 'received wisdom' for the lazy thinker.
Porte (62kg) is pretty good at TTs, so is Valverde (61kg) and Evans (64kg). Malori & Pinotti also under 70kg. Even Anquetil was only 70kg. There's no real correlation with body mass - it just stops being particularly relevant.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Looks like I left myself a little wiggle room. Probably suggesting a guess more than a fact.

You can dig all you want.

So, am I wrong on his weight?

I already answered your question.

 

[Merckx index]

Yes you can do it - it's easy. Find some 14 year old boys and put them on a testing rig and ask them to pedal as hard as they can. I bet most of them go over 500W - but it's just a twenty minute burst. 800-900 in 10-20 second burst is fairly standard for a healthy young male too.
My point is the actual forces required are not that big.

I think you meant twenty second burst. You're just arguing that some random kid can put out the same force as Froome, if you make the period for the kid short enough. But for that same period, Froome and other elite riders can put out more. There is a very well known relationship between maximal force and time. By moving along the curve, one can find a time for a kid where the force is the same as for Froome at another time. But the whole curve is different for Froome vs. the kid. If you can provide some links that indicate otherwise, I will certainly look at them.

Why does it contribute less to distance runners - it's still energy being expended via the legs. Where are the heavy legged distance runners?

I could turn it around and ask, where are the skinny sprinters?

There are no heavy-legged distance runners because in any running, you have to exert force to lift your body off the ground. That added weight becomes more of a relative disadvantage as the distance increases. In that respect, distance running is something like climbing on a bike.

In TTng on a bike you do not have to lift your body off the ground. So comparing distance running to TTng doesn't work. In TTng, added weight in muscles is not a hindrance, except in that added weight correlates with greater surface area.

A rough rule is that sprinting on foot is like TTng on a bike, and distance running is like climbing. A sprinter needs massive leg muscles because acceleration is critical and because, as with TTng, air resistance is a problem and that is overcome with greater mass (see below). A distance runner has to deal with lifting his weight off the ground, which is more of a disadvantage when moving at constant speed, and at the same time, air resistance is somewhat less of a factor than it is for sprinters (because of the lower speeds and because drafting is allowed).

But does it? Or is this just more 'received wisdom' for the lazy thinker.
Porte (62kg) is pretty good at TTs, so is Valverde (61kg) and Evans (64kg). Malori & Pinotti also under 70kg. Even Anquetil was only 70kg. There's no real correlation with body mass - it just stops being particularly relevant.

I said other things being equal, obviously there are other factors. But it's nonsense to say there's no correlation; the physics and physiology are very clear about this. Power goes up with mass, which is a cube function, wind resistance goes up with area, which is a squared function. It is a very good general rule. While you may find some relatively small good TTers, and certainly among the general population there is overlap,so that some small riders are better TTers than some large riders, at the elite level the very best are almost always going to be large riders, because size does provide a very substantial advantage.

Who have been the best TTers in recent years? Cancellara, Martin, Wiggins. Even Froome has the size to be an excellent TT, it's his emaciated condition that argues that there is a problem.

Since you're implying that you are not a lazy thinker, and that people who argue with you are, why don't you explain to me why the reverse relationship holds for climbing, i.e., small riders tend to be better climbers. There is a reason for this.

 

[Scott SoCal]

You can dig all you want.

I already answered your question.

Uh, ok. How stupid of me to speculate.

From this point forward I'll just use the god Dr. Ferrari's descriptor, "ghastly."

does that term work for you?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You especially need to keep in mind flat TTs vs any sort of hill, where the equation for speed goes from W/m^2 to W/kg uphill and the inverse for flat and probably a balance for downhill.

 

[veganrob]

Do what, exactly?

Don't you read your own posts

 

[Parker]

You're just arguing that some random kid can put out the same force as Froome, if you make the period for the kid short enough. But for that same period, Froome and other elite riders can put out more. There is a very well known relationship between maximal force and time. By moving along the curve, one can find a time for a kid where the force is the same as for Froome at another time. But the whole curve is different for Froome vs. the kid.

And as you move along the curve sustainability rather than maximum force becomes more relevant. Muscle mass is important for force, not sustainability.

I could turn it around and ask, where are the skinny sprinters?

There aren't, because once again maximum force is the important factor for them and that comes from muscle mass. However, it should be noted that Kittel and Cavendish are very skinny when compared to Hoy and Bauge.

I said other things being equal,

But all things aren't equal. Size is one of many factors. You need to stop looking for easy generalisations to explain complex problems.

Since you're implying that you are not a lazy thinker, and that people who argue with you are, why don't you explain to me why the reverse relationship holds for climbing, i.e., small riders tend to be better climbers. There is a reason for this.

Again you revert to a trite generalisation based on a few observations. Is Samuel Dumoulin are great climber? Short riders tend to be climbers as there's not much call for a 5'6" domestique unless he has special skills. Teams prefer a six foot guy who can do the same job. Of course there have been plenty of tall climbers. Aside from Froome - Schleck (6'1), Bahamontes (6'0), Merckx (6'0), Fignon (6'0) for example.
It's stereotyping. And anything that veers from the basic 'rules' confuses people.

Sports science is complex and hard to fully comprehend. Doping is easy to understand - the idea of 'magic potions' is in literature for eight year olds. Humans tend to go for the quick easy explanation regardless of its actual merits.