Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 990 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:
That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.
Man, this is soooo depressingly like the Lance and US Postal days (not a dig a you btw). I will repost probably for the 20th time, my medically trained South African sis in law, literally guffawed when I suggested Bilharzia was a problem for Froome. Literally guffawed, she doesn't know Froome from Adam. But her words, you get it, you take a pill or two and it's gone. And this is from personal experience with her friends who did get it. Only an idiot, her words would get it again from swimming in infected waters...but if you did, repeat treatment....
depressing indeed...a bit like the pharmacists/docs who guffawed at the treatment for Wiggos breathing (x3) just before his GTs

Presumably Swart knows this and didn't touch...he is after all a (real) scientist....

throw enough herrings up there and the befuddled get....eh...befuddled

PS you a traditionalist and still in clips and straps???...thought you might have the new bridge in your wee photo thing :)
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:
That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.
Indeed...and if you read the subsequent interview the original quote is indeed based on the data points (themselves questionable - a pro at 17% fat :D ) however Swart goes on to explain the other variable which might be at play....and the B word gets no mention

and of course all the top guys are using PEDs but, as has been expressed far more eloquently than by me, its the BS from SKY and the two GT no-hopers that SKY have thrust upon that raises the hackles (well, that and the gangly, stem watching styleeee :) )
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:
That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.
Man, this is soooo depressingly like the Lance and US Postal days (not a dig a you btw). I will repost probably for the 20th time, my medically trained South African sis in law, literally guffawed when I suggested Bilharzia was a problem for Froome. Literally guffawed, she doesn't know Froome from Adam. But her words, you get it, you take a pill or two and it's gone. And this is from personal experience with her friends who did get it. Only an idiot, her words would get it again from swimming in infected waters...but if you did, repeat treatment....
Ah but you are a psudoscientist for saying this.

Whereas Brailsford and his bikes that give a 15% boost (without motors), is a real scientist.
 
Aug 19, 2015
88
0
0
Talking of pseudoscientists...

What happened to the peer-reviewed papers in academic journals that Sky promised? One on Froome and one on Henao, IIRC. Did either of them get published?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
bikenrrd said:
Talking of pseudoscientists...

What happened to the peer-reviewed papers in academic journals that Sky promised? One on Froome and one on Henao, IIRC. Did either of them get published?
yes
Link please.
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
bikenrrd said:
Talking of pseudoscientists...

What happened to the peer-reviewed papers in academic journals that Sky promised? One on Froome and one on Henao, IIRC. Did either of them get published?
yes
No, the altitude natives report was never published with the University of Sheffield stating it wouldn’t and to “ask Brailsford”. Froome’s Swart paper only included his 2015 data nothing else. Sky also sent some data to Grappe to analyse but did not include anything from pre-2011 Vuelta (surprise surprise).
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
bikenrrd said:
Talking of pseudoscientists...

What happened to the peer-reviewed papers in academic journals that Sky promised? One on Froome and one on Henao, IIRC. Did either of them get published?
yes
Link please.
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2017/01000/The_Physiological_Profile_of_a_Multiple_Tour_de.14.aspx
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS. Swart has been taken apart for that and left floundering in here and on Twitter.

Henao's ?

Also got a link to Sky's investigation into the video they claimed was hacked?
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
bikenrrd said:
Talking of pseudoscientists...

What happened to the peer-reviewed papers in academic journals that Sky promised? One on Froome and one on Henao, IIRC. Did either of them get published?
yes
Link please.
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2017/01000/The_Physiological_Profile_of_a_Multiple_Tour_de.14.aspx
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Swart repeated the 'lost the fat, inner fat' many times. But hey dont let that get in the way of an academic paper being the truth, especially with Swart as one of the originators.

The academic papers only allegedly proved that Froome had the numbers to produce the power all along.

But again that was all called into question when photos of the Aigle tests were produced. Old ground long dismissed.

Froome transformed in 3 weeks and the paper gave no reason as to how. Twitter has more logic to how it happened ;)
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Last paragraph of the discussion (so just above the conclusion)

The participant_s mass recorded in 2007 was 75.6 kg.This is 4.8 kg greater than that recorded on the day of testing (70.8 kg) and approximately 8 kg greater than the self reported race mass of the participant (67 kg). This equates to a change in mass of 10.5%. The reduction in mass appears to have been predominantly through the loss of body fat mass. The recorded body fat percentage was 16.9% in 2007 in comparison with 9.5% for the more recent test; however, differing methodologies may result in significant differences in the determination of body fat percentage (17). It is therefore not possible to conclude definitively whether the mass lost by the participant was predominantly fat mass, muscle mass, or a combination of both. Such a large reduction in mass would have an equivalent or greater performance enhancing effect during uphill racing provided that the ability to produce power was not adversely effected. The PPO of 525 W compares favorably to the PPO of 540 W reported in 2007 when expressed relative to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 WIkgj1).
 
Re: Re:

Catwhoorg said:
miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Last paragraph of the discussion (so just above the conclusion)

The participant_s mass recorded in 2007 was 75.6 kg.This is 4.8 kg greater than that recorded on the day of testing (70.8 kg) and approximately 8 kg greater than the self reported race mass of the participant (67 kg). This equates to a change in mass of 10.5%. The reduction in mass appears to have been predominantly through the loss of body fat mass. The recorded body fat percentage was 16.9% in 2007 in comparison with 9.5% for the more recent test; however, differing methodologies may result in significant differences in the determination of body fat percentage (17). It is therefore not possible to conclude definitively whether the mass lost by the participant was predominantly fat mass, muscle mass, or a combination of both. Such a large reduction in mass would have an equivalent or greater performance enhancing effect during uphill racing provided that the ability to produce power was not adversely effected. The PPO of 525 W compares favorably to the PPO of 540 W reported in 2007 when expressed relative to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 WIkgj1).
17% :)

Goes to the UCI academy, goes to barloworld, goes to sky,

5 years and nobody tells fatty Froome he could be winning, nay dominating, the Tour if he just stayed off the pies...

then, in one fell swoop...the pies stop.....and stay stopped.......

you would almost say 'unbelievable'...... :D
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
bikenrrd said:
Talking of pseudoscientists...

What happened to the peer-reviewed papers in academic journals that Sky promised? One on Froome and one on Henao, IIRC. Did either of them get published?
yes
Link please.
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2017/01000/The_Physiological_Profile_of_a_Multiple_Tour_de.14.aspx
That tells us absolutely nothing and you know it
 
I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating it. No decent club cyclist comes in with fat % of 17%. This is ridiculous, a made up figure, it is nonsense. The contemporary pictures of Froome don't support it and data from lots and lots and lots of elite cyclists does not support it. Nobody, but nobody, not a single rider competes in the pro peloton with a fat content of 17%.

It is a narrative put out via a well meaning fan who has been duped into writing some babble when presented with the "long lost fax" that Michele states she found in Froome's sock drawer or some such blather. It is Badzilla II. It is the doctor who came up with the theory that Tyler had a phantom twin's blood in him and not that the sticky lables fell of the blood in the fridge and someone put them back on the wrong bottle. It is "all that epo was for my mother in law". It is "all that epo in my garage is for my horse". It is all that testosterone accidentally turned up at Manchester because there was a shipping error. It is "I know I am nearly 60 but all that epo I orders is for my own use and not for Jeannie". It is "I lost my laptop".

This is pro cycling. Clean riders don't thrash dopers' times up big mountains. 1,241 pages in !

If you want to know how keen the UCI are to detect stuff that stinks, that will drive sponsors away, stuff that will stop the gravy train, have a look at the video on twitter of Cookson being shown the bike with the motor in at. Watch it with the sound off and look at his face. You can actually see the penny clunking its way through his head as he realises that what he feared is really true.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Catwhoorg said:
miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Last paragraph of the discussion (so just above the conclusion)

The participant_s mass recorded in 2007 was 75.6 kg.This is 4.8 kg greater than that recorded on the day of testing (70.8 kg) and approximately 8 kg greater than the self reported race mass of the participant (67 kg). This equates to a change in mass of 10.5%. The reduction in mass appears to have been predominantly through the loss of body fat mass. The recorded body fat percentage was 16.9% in 2007 in comparison with 9.5% for the more recent test; however, differing methodologies may result in significant differences in the determination of body fat percentage (17). It is therefore not possible to conclude definitively whether the mass lost by the participant was predominantly fat mass, muscle mass, or a combination of both. Such a large reduction in mass would have an equivalent or greater performance enhancing effect during uphill racing provided that the ability to produce power was not adversely effected. The PPO of 525 W compares favorably to the PPO of 540 W reported in 2007 when expressed relative to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 WIkgj1).
17% :)

Goes to the UCI academy, goes to barloworld, goes to sky,

5 years and nobody tells fatty Froome he could be winning, nay dominating, the Tour if he just stayed off the pies...

then, in one fell swoop...the pies stop.....and stay stopped.......

you would almost say 'unbelievable'...... :D
The pies staying stopped isn't unbelievable, many non-athletes do it such as LCHF diet advocates, which is very good for losing weight and keeping control of blood sugar.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
gillan1969 said:
Catwhoorg said:
miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Last paragraph of the discussion (so just above the conclusion)

The participant_s mass recorded in 2007 was 75.6 kg.This is 4.8 kg greater than that recorded on the day of testing (70.8 kg) and approximately 8 kg greater than the self reported race mass of the participant (67 kg). This equates to a change in mass of 10.5%. The reduction in mass appears to have been predominantly through the loss of body fat mass. The recorded body fat percentage was 16.9% in 2007 in comparison with 9.5% for the more recent test; however, differing methodologies may result in significant differences in the determination of body fat percentage (17). It is therefore not possible to conclude definitively whether the mass lost by the participant was predominantly fat mass, muscle mass, or a combination of both. Such a large reduction in mass would have an equivalent or greater performance enhancing effect during uphill racing provided that the ability to produce power was not adversely effected. The PPO of 525 W compares favorably to the PPO of 540 W reported in 2007 when expressed relative to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 WIkgj1).
17% :)

Goes to the UCI academy, goes to barloworld, goes to sky,

5 years and nobody tells fatty Froome he could be winning, nay dominating, the Tour if he just stayed off the pies...

then, in one fell swoop...the pies stop.....and stay stopped.......

you would almost say 'unbelievable'...... :D
The pies staying stopped isn't unbelievable, many non-athletes do it such as LCHF diet advocates, which is very good for losing weight and keeping control of blood sugar.
Doesn't make the performance of 3 weeks transformation that Froome went through believable.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
gillan1969 said:
Catwhoorg said:
miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Last paragraph of the discussion (so just above the conclusion)

The participant_s mass recorded in 2007 was 75.6 kg.This is 4.8 kg greater than that recorded on the day of testing (70.8 kg) and approximately 8 kg greater than the self reported race mass of the participant (67 kg). This equates to a change in mass of 10.5%. The reduction in mass appears to have been predominantly through the loss of body fat mass. The recorded body fat percentage was 16.9% in 2007 in comparison with 9.5% for the more recent test; however, differing methodologies may result in significant differences in the determination of body fat percentage (17). It is therefore not possible to conclude definitively whether the mass lost by the participant was predominantly fat mass, muscle mass, or a combination of both. Such a large reduction in mass would have an equivalent or greater performance enhancing effect during uphill racing provided that the ability to produce power was not adversely effected. The PPO of 525 W compares favorably to the PPO of 540 W reported in 2007 when expressed relative to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 WIkgj1).
17% :)

Goes to the UCI academy, goes to barloworld, goes to sky,

5 years and nobody tells fatty Froome he could be winning, nay dominating, the Tour if he just stayed off the pies...

then, in one fell swoop...the pies stop.....and stay stopped.......

you would almost say 'unbelievable'...... :D
The pies staying stopped isn't unbelievable, many non-athletes do it such as LCHF diet advocates, which is very good for losing weight and keeping control of blood sugar.
Can you tell us which protour cyclists are on that diet?
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
ferryman said:
Benotti69 said:
miguelindurain111 said:
I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:
That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.
Man, this is soooo depressingly like the Lance and US Postal days (not a dig a you btw). I will repost probably for the 20th time, my medically trained South African sis in law, literally guffawed when I suggested Bilharzia was a problem for Froome. Literally guffawed, she doesn't know Froome from Adam. But her words, you get it, you take a pill or two and it's gone. And this is from personal experience with her friends who did get it. Only an idiot, her words would get it again from swimming in infected waters...but if you did, repeat treatment....
depressing indeed...a bit like the pharmacists/docs who guffawed at the treatment for Wiggos breathing (x3) just before his GTs

Presumably Swart knows this and didn't touch...he is after all a (real) scientist....

throw enough herrings up there and the befuddled get....eh...befuddled

PS you a traditionalist and still in clips and straps???...thought you might have the new bridge in your wee photo thing :)


Taking things a wee bit off topic but to reply. Yes old school but went clipless before I had to stop riding:( The lighthouse in my avatar pre-dates all of the bridges by a long way:) An ancient pilgrim route to Dunfermline and St Andrews:)http://www.worldwidelighthouses.com/Lighthouses/Scottish-Lighthouses/Privately-Owned/North-Queensferry :
 
Re: Re:

Catwhoorg said:
miguelindurain111 said:
Benotti69 said:
Yes, Froome lost the inner fat or other BS.
Nothing like that is mentioned in the academic paper in question. Well, it's not actually surprising that you prefer esquire and twitter over academic papers :lol:
Last paragraph of the discussion (so just above the conclusion)

The participant_s mass recorded in 2007 was 75.6 kg.This is 4.8 kg greater than that recorded on the day of testing (70.8 kg) and approximately 8 kg greater than the self reported race mass of the participant (67 kg). This equates to a change in mass of 10.5%. The reduction in mass appears to have been predominantly through the loss of body fat mass. The recorded body fat percentage was 16.9% in 2007 in comparison with 9.5% for the more recent test; however, differing methodologies may result in significant differences in the determination of body fat percentage (17). It is therefore not possible to conclude definitively whether the mass lost by the participant was predominantly fat mass, muscle mass, or a combination of both. Such a large reduction in mass would have an equivalent or greater performance enhancing effect during uphill racing provided that the ability to produce power was not adversely effected. The PPO of 525 W compares favorably to the PPO of 540 W reported in 2007 when expressed relative to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 WIkgj1).
I don't see how this is a defense of Froome being clean. Given that: the big physiological question is how to lose that much weight whilst maintaining power without doping.

Assuming these figures are true, losing that much body fat whilst already being an elite athlete begs - I mean truly begs - the question of how.

Given that we already know - categorically - that Sky abused the TUE system to put Wiggins on Kenocort before grand tours (a doping product explicitly used to keep weight off), it seems highly implausible that Froome got to drop that much weight by eating rice crackers for dinner.
 
It's not about maintaining power output. Froome's radical improvement in time trials show that, but the propaganda wagon would have us look the other way.

And as for the 2007. When was that, where in the season, etc? I can hardly think that's in 2007 peak shape
 
Even doping, you'll still loose power when loosing weight surely? I see it often claimed corticosteroids allow you to loose weight without power, but if Wiggins could maintain 440w at his Tour weight why needlessly gain 10kg over a year or so training for Hour record? i.e. he output average of 440w for 1hr @ 83.2kg hour record weight. His Tour weight was reported between 69kg & 71kg. If he could hold 440w @ 71kg for an hour the hour record would be out of reach forever I would think, or rather he would be unstoppable and simply ride each mountain like Indurain in Tours.

83.2kg @ 440w = 4.9 watts/kg
71kg @ 440w = 5.7 watts/kg

Perhaps not a significant difference in hour record distance using simply the numbers, but I doubt any 71kg GC contender on corticosteroids could actually hold 5.7 watts/kg for a whole hour in TT position surely?
 
samhocking said:
Even doping, you'll still loose power when loosing weight surely? I see it often claimed corticosteroids allow you to loose weight without power, but if Wiggins could maintain 440w at his Tour weight why needlessly gain 10kg over a year or so training for Hour record? i.e. he output average of 440w for 1hr @ 83.2kg hour record weight. His Tour weight was reported between 69kg & 71kg. If he could hold 440w @ 71kg for an hour the hour record would be out of reach forever I would think, or rather he would be unstoppable and simply ride each mountain like Indurain in Tours.

83.2kg @ 440w = 4.9 watts/kg
71kg @ 440w = 5.7 watts/kg

Perhaps not a significant difference in hour record distance using simply the numbers, but I doubt any 71kg GC contender on corticosteroids could actually hold 5.7 watts/kg for a whole hour in TT position surely?
If you retain lean muscle mass there's no reason why you shouldn't retain power output. Actually, if you lose fat in you legs it should actually decrease inertia of your legs, which would save energy, albeit very slightly.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
It's not about maintaining power output. Froome's radical improvement in time trials show that, but the propaganda wagon would have us look the other way.

And as for the 2007. When was that, where in the season, etc? I can hardly think that's in 2007 peak shape
I believe he was in peak shape,taken shortly after a stage race as has been posted here before.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY