Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Dear Wiggo]

Do you understand 'threshold', 'limit' and 'average'?

I think you almost certainly do, but it doesn't help your argument, so you hope noone else notices? Or more likely, cares?



Just in case you don't I imagine Froome's last km was > 5.9W/kg, but then he would have been riding at his limit - probably more like 7/8/9 W/kg for a few minutes burst, and was probably just under threshold for the rest of the climb as he was being drafted by Uran and Henao (who would have been at their threshold) so over the whole climb he averages threshold.

Complex stuff huh - threshold, 5 minute power, drafting, basic mathematics - it's easier just to post drivel.

This forum really needs a 'Thank you/Like' post option.

Drivel? Observe the facts:

1. the climb was 38:22. "Threshold" as in FTP functional threshold power is the power you can hold for an hour. It's irrelevant.
2. Froome's attack was for 2 minutes. So 5 minute power, again, irrelevant.

None of these climbs are an hour long, so this "limit" we're talking about, is some magical fairy dust W/kg that has been "allowed", for the final, MTF of a stage in a multi-stage race. It's meant to indicate "human" performance.

Back to the post you denigrated with your genius rebuttal. Froome rode for 36 minutes just under threshold and then did a supra-VO2max++ effort to top it all off.

My point: if Froome was really at his limit, he could not attack
Your rebuttal: he was just under his limit, of course he could attack, he was drafting n stuff

Yes of course, you have explained it all away, nothing to see.

Looking at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA-R37jUwWY - Froome takes off / drops his team mate at 5:00 into the video and crosses the line at 7:06 into the video.

To keep the calculations simple, let's say it's 2 minutes at his 2 minute limit and 36 minutes at "sub-threshold".

The simple maths you disparagingly allude to is the following equation:

((36/38:22)*X) + ((2/38:22)*Y) = 5.93

where
X = average power before his attack
Y =average power of his 2 minute attack

We're solving for 2 variables with one equation, but we can do that using limits.

Froome is riding by himself for the final 2 minutes (Y), so we know the minimum for his attack must be 5.93W/kg, given he's riding solo, dropping everyone, and the final average.

According to acoggan's power profile table, world record 1 minute power is 11.5 W/kg. As this is a 2 minute effort, I think we can safely say that's the upper bound on Y.

Y = {5.93 - 11.5}

And we know the maximum for X before his attack is 5.93W/kg, again, as he clearly is going harder in his attack and we cannot go over that average. We can use the upper limit for Y to determine our minimum X, but it's just as easy to start at 5 and work our way up.

X = {5 - 5.93}

So basically what you're saying is, Froome can ride at 96-98% of what is humanly possible up the final climb in a protour race, and then accelerate and sustain supra-VO2max power for 2 minutes. And you have no problem with this?

What I am saying is: he must have been cruising, at 96-98% of what is considered humanly possible, to have that much anaerobic work capacity left to be able to smash out the 2 minute power he did. He was riding at effectively 1/3 - 2/3 more W/kg for the final 2 minutes.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Drivel? Observe the facts:

What I am saying is: he must have been cruising, at 96-98% of what is considered humanly possible, to have that much anaerobic work capacity left to be able to smash out the 2 minute power he did. He was riding at effectively 1/3 - 2/3 more W/kg for the final 2 minutes.

That's what blows me away, in terms of blind fandom we're hearing.

"Sky's not doing anything superhuman, you're just a bitter hater", hardly. And it's not just the Sky leaders, it's the doms. THEY are holding threshold on the bubble of what's possible. For a long freaking time, until 1km to go.

I am astounded that people can think that is an expected, normal performance. Mind you, there were a lot of people that bought the USPS line. "He lost weight from cancer, they all just work harder than the other teams, look what cadence can do, etc, etc".

Sounds like a lot of the same hot air that's coming from Sky, and what that means is that (to the fanboys/Skybots) every other multi-million euro team is a bunch of rank amateurs. That Sky, somehow, has figured out how to train properly while every other team with a legacy in cycling, and employing dirty doctors and staff, has lost the plot for the last twenty years and is doing a sh*t job of running a pro team.

Really? You can buy this?

As I said in an other post somewhere, EVERY team that has performed like this within the last 30 years has been implicated in a doping scandal.

Pull your head out, 'bots...

 

[Ferminal]

Slower than 2006, clean is another question, probably cleaner than 2006 though

It was faster than 2006 (on average)... All they had that year was the top3 on Alpe d'Huez, rest was poor.

 

[sittingbison]

...I'm quite new to the forum and I'm sure you've had this argument a million times before with other people but Wiggins did not come out of nowhere. A rider who has done nothing in road racing in his early to mid 20s because he is mediocre, is very clearly not the same thing as a rider who has done nothing in road racing because he has been busy winning multiple Olympic golds...

I am not saying he is definitely clean. But nor is he a donkey who has been struggling home in 50th place for the first ten years of his career, before miraculously turning into an invincible robot.

James, you are totally correct. You are a n00b, and the bolded has been discussed at some length...in fact close to the million times you mentioned

Now, lets just quickly revisit the "donkey struggling home in 50th place" scenario:
123rd, 124th, 134th, 71st

hmmmm not exactly 50th place, its actually called the "autobus" which is where the strugglers actually reside.

But never fear, after going on an almighty binge after Beijing and putting even more weight on his 82kg track physique, Sir Wiggo managed to shed a pound or two just in the nick of time to place 4th in 2009 TdF, 36s behind a juiced to the gills Lance. Announcing to the world his true road pedigree

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

James, you are totally correct. You are a n00b, and the bolded has been discussed at some length...in fact close to the million times you mentioned

Now, lets just quickly revisit the "donkey struggling home in 50th place" scenario:
123rd, 124th, 134th, 71st

hmmmm not exactly 50th place, its actually called the "autobus" which is where the strugglers actually reside.

But never fear, after going on an almighty binge after Beijing and putting even more weight on his 82kg track physique, Sir Wiggo managed to shed a pound or two just in the nick of time to place 4th in 2009 TdF, 36s behind a juiced to the gills Lance. Announcing to the world his true road pedigree

You're awfully punchy for a mod...

 

[sittingbison]

just trying to nip in the bud the arguments that have been done to death at least 5 times over in the various Sky and Wiggo threads.

jamesmasters should go and read those 17000 posts for background before clogging up another thread

A thread called Froome Talk Only (ie its not about Sir Wiggo)

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Agreed. I may deek out for months (possibly years) at a time, but I spend a lot of time reading threads before I post. Lotsa new folks I'm not familiar with, I'm assuming UK armada...

 

[Cavendash]

Since you say you have not read the clinic before and all your comments only concern the - imrprovement part of the story Ill take this chance to tell you that here are more sides to the sky doping case than just the surprising massive improvements of 4 riders all of whom just happen to be at sky when they get the improvement.

If you do believe that was a total coincidence (and even Sky dont seem to want to sell it that way given the vague comments about how training at sky is so good it provides boosts equal to doping- their words) then there are other things to look at,

One is Wiggin's very strange open admiration (for someone allegedly anti doping) for Lance Armstrong which reached far more sycophantic levels than anyone else in the peloton and which included crediting him personally for many of his victories last year (including on the podium at Paris Nice) and attacking his accusers . Obviously tied with Sky openly crowning themselves as successors of Lances team - US postal and calling themselves - UK Postal. Another eybrowraiser at the least.

Theres the total failure of their original anti doping policies and promises. Not only did they fail horribly in their pledge to sign only clean riders and staff - with some very obviously shady people like Yates Barry Rogers signed, they also went back on their promise to to be open about doping. The most notable example being Bailsford saying he had no idea Barry was a doper and that he was shocked to hear Lance Armstrong did it too

Oh and the small matter of what a doctor recently identified as having been a doping mastermind at Rabobank, was doing at Sky last year and why team "we will be honest and open about doping" have decided to take a "dont you dare ask me about that" attitude with regard to him.

So no hard evidence then...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So no hard evidence then...

No. No positive test that we know about at any rate. Your work here is done. See you next year!

 

[airstream]

Probably a few people can say 'Sky are clean, I'd like to hope', all the rest defenders say they are not dirtier than others, but even it automatically makes them sky fanboys. It is March and all GT contenders are far from their best alleged shape about equally, so Froome too. However, some are dissapointed with that. They sincerely though Froome needed a peak to crush the opponents at Tirreno. OMG... A new superstar came! It became obvious straight in the 2011 Vuelta. Many people subconsciously run away from it, calling him a second league climber etc etc. It's high time to put up with reality now at least.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

"Sky's not doing anything superhuman, you're just a bitter hater", hardly. And it's not just the Sky leaders, it's the doms. THEY are holding threshold on the bubble of what's possible. For a long freaking time, until 1km to go..

And, do not forget, they do it day after day.

At least Evans got the message yesterday.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Drivel? Observe the facts:

1. the climb was 38:22. "Threshold" as in FTP functional threshold power is the power you can hold for an hour. It's irrelevant.
2. Froome's attack was for 2 minutes. So 5 minute power, again, irrelevant.

For some strange reason I keep replying to your posts. I think its because I see your potential and I understand you ARE genuinely interested in discussing and perhaps learning about the physiology of human performance. Please take that as a compliment because that is what it is.

So I'm going to add a few things. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong, just trying to educate you a little bit.

Now....

1. FTP is an arbitrary definition that acoggan came up with. It's a nice rounded number to use that conforms the standard world time concept of 60min to an hour, 24hrs to a day. The true definition of "lactate threshold" is this.... the highest power output that can be sustained at which the rate of lactate production is equal to rate of lactate oxidation.

In moderately trained people this power can be sustained for around 30-40min. In very highly trained people it is closer to 60min.

Physiologically speaking however, between 30 and 60min on the critical power curve, the gradient is very flat. Therefore, the power output that any human can maintain for 38min is close to the power that they can maintain for one hour. The better endurance trained that individual is the smaller the difference.

So in fact, discussing Froome's FTP is not irrelevant because it is very highly correlated to the power he could sustain for 38min.

So basically what you're saying is, Froome can ride at 96-98&#37]I'm not sure what you are referring to as "what is humanly possible" here, but to me, the term "cruising" implies that you believe Froome was riding BELOW his threshold power. He could have been, but it is not necessary in order to produce a supramaximal effort. Froome, and ALL other moderately or highly trained humans are capable of exercising at 100% of their threshold power for 30-60mins, and then smash out a 2min supramaximal effort on top of that.... by using the anaerobic energy system.

The anaerobic work capacity is not a fixed amount though. Remove that idea completely. Anaerobic work capacity is dependent (amongst other things) on the accumulation of metabolites which contribute to acute muscle fatigue. The exercise is terminated not because you "ran out of energy" in the sense that you emptied a bucket until there was nothing left, the analogy is that you cannot continue to keep emptying the bucket because something stops you tipping the bucket over. For example, H+ ions inhibit PFK which is a rate limiting step in the glycolytic pathway. Inhibit PFK and you inhibit anaerobic ATP production.

Now at lactate threshold power... ie: 100% effort for 30-40min, the accumulation of metabolites (which inhibit anaerobic energy production) is basically non-existent (hence the reason you can sustain the effort). At 96-98% of lactate threshold power, the accumulations of metabolites is also non-existent. So it makes little difference if you exercise at 100% of your maximal 36min power output or at 96% of that power to your ability to generate 2min worth of anaerobic energy production.

This is why you will notice in ALL middle distance to marathon running events that a sprint effort occurs at the end. Does it mean those runners were not going 100% of threshold power previously? No of course not.

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

Not many glittering road careers from the class of '06 - well there is that Kenyan guy that got lapped

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_mtb

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So in fact, discussing Froome's FTP is not irrelevant because it is very highly correlated to the power he could sustain for 38min.

Except it's not relevant, as it's coming at the end of a 173km stage.

If you actually followed cycling you'd know people doing FTP efforts don't do them for the final hour of a 173km stage, 4 stages into a ProTour race.

I attribute this lack of understanding to
1. too much time in the lab, doing a PhD and all that theory
2. spending too much time teaching people the basics, without real world experience in actually oh I don't know, riding a bike.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not sure what you are referring to as "what is humanly possible" here, but to me, the term "cruising" implies that you believe Froome was riding BELOW his threshold power. He could have been, but it is not necessary in order to produce a supramaximal effort. Froome, and ALL other moderately or highly trained humans are capable of exercising at 100% of their threshold power for 30-60mins, and then smash out a 2min supramaximal effort on top of that.... by using the anaerobic energy system.

"What is humanly possible" implies what can be done clean, according to the JV sales pitch and a number of other people who are trying to convince everyone the peloton is cleaner now.

I disagree completely with your assertion that anyone, moderately or highly trained, can exercise at 60 minutes at 100% threshold power and then go for 2 minutes more at 33-66% more power than threshold.

It does not even make sense, from posts you yourself have posted here, where a 1hour effort at threshold is supplied by 1-2% anaerobic power. ie all available AWC is used up in the effort.

Classic TT tip: if you can sprint (that's a 10-20 second effort) at the end of a TT - you didn't go hard enough. And you're saying you can not only do that effort but then do another 2 minutes, at 133-166% of FTP.

Just.

No.

This is why you will notice in ALL middle distance to marathon running events that a sprint effort occurs at the end. Does it mean those runners were not going 100% of threshold power previously? No of course not.

Yet again missing the point. How long do these guys "sprint" in these middle distance to marathon running races? 20 seconds? 30 seconds? Are they doing 33-66% more power than the previous portion of the race?

Also: 2 minutes is not a sprint in my book.

 

[Ferminal]

The way I see it is that some riders have a capacity to sustain a "short" burst no matter what state they are in. Rodriguez is the classic example who may be close to dropping for the first 80% of a climb but then use his trademark "ride away from everyone else in the final 1-2km". I would sense that this is some sort of anaerobic capacity which allows him to do it, or maybe just a different physiology? Then you have a Basso or Wiggins whose short term maximum is not much greater than their threshold so they need a high pace the entire climb and take longer to bridge gaps. Most riders would fall somewhere between these two extremes.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Except it's not relevant, as it's coming at the end of a 173km stage.

If you actually followed cycling you'd know people doing FTP efforts don't do them for the final hour of a 173km stage, 4 stages into a ProTour race.

I attribute this lack of understanding to
1. too much time in the lab, doing a PhD and all that theory
2. spending too much time teaching people the basics, without real world experience in actually oh I don't know, riding a bike.

So I play nice and the immediate response is to troll back instead of having a discussion. Bravo.

And for the record, you do just enough cycling to "maintain 22% bf". I do enough cycling to race a-grade at club level.

So maybe you can explain to me, how I was able to produce one of my best ever 3min efforts up a climb at the end of a 150km ride on the weekend?

Maybe you can also explain to me why a very common pattern of power output in racing is 90% of the time spent positively rolling around at about 200w and then max power efforts occur at the end of stages? The AIS has been measuring this stuff in stage racing for over 12yrs. We knew in the 90s that the highest average 5min, 20min and 30min power outputs always come at the END of stages in stage races or one day races.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So I play nice and the immediate response is to troll back instead of having a discussion. Bravo.

And for the record, you do just enough cycling to "maintain 22% bf". I do enough cycling to race a-grade at club level.

Meh anyone can rock up and enter A grade club-level. Just have a license and pay the entry fee. T'aint nothin'.

Not everyone has a sense of humour though.

Any word on the 30% chance of Wiggins doping thesis? Still waiting.

The race report from December last year says you were racing C grade too. So uh. A grade? Found the links to the other race reports. Team sandbagger eh?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Gee. I say noone can do a 60 minute 100% FTP effort followed by a 2 minute FTP+33-66% 2 minute effort, and your royal PhDness says

So maybe you can explain to me, how I was able to produce one of my best ever 3min efforts up a climb at the end of a 150km ride on the weekend?

3. minute. effort.

Reading comprehension.

Habla Englesi?

Maybe you can also explain to me why a very common pattern of power output in racing is 90% of the time spent positively rolling around at about 200w and then max power efforts occur at the end of stages? The AIS has been measuring this stuff in stage racing for over 12yrs. We knew in the 90s that the highest average 5min, 20min and 30min power outputs always come at the END of stages in stage races or one day races.

Again, not what I am arguing. 60 minutes 100% FTP then 2 minutes at FTP+33-66%.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Gee. I say noone can do a 60 minute 100% FTP effort followed by a 2 minute FTP+33-66% 2 minute effort, and your royal PhDness says



3. minute. effort.

Reading comprehension.

Habla Englesi?



Again, not what I am arguing. 60 minutes 100% FTP then 2 minutes at FTP+33-66%.

What you said is this......

"he must have been cruising, at 96-98% of what is considered humanly possible, to have that much anaerobic work capacity left to be able to smash out the 2 minute power he did."

For starters you don't know what power Froome was holding in that stage for 36min. You don't know what power he averaged for the last 2min. You don't know what Froome's best FTP is. You don't know how much energy he spent leading up to that point in the stage. So in fact you really don't have any clue at all "how much anaerobic work capacity" Froome was capable of sustaining for 2min, yet you're certain it was above "what is humanly possible" which therefore confirms your belief that Froome is doping.

I tried to be nice and start a proper discussion and once again you trolled me back and you keep trolling. I'm telling you that in my experience, which involves 12yrs working in the elite sport system in Australia with world renowned experts in cycling performance and having been on training camps with elite road cyclists and conducting lab testing on elite cyclists and being privy to unpublished power data collected during stage racing on elite cyclists, what I have learnt is that these guys can either match or get very close to PB efforts over 2, 5 or 30min even at the end of 170km long stages when they are in race level fitness. What I also know is that whether or not you can match your best 2, 5 or 30min power at the end of a 170km stage depends a lot on what happened during the stage before. If you are a protected rider and you expend little energy above threshold, then 150kms at 200w average is like a warm up, doping or not doping.

To make these calls that you are doing eg: Froome was riding at 5.93 w/kg but this was only 96% of his true FTP but he was not riding at his true FTP anyway because it was the end of a stage, without ANY knowledge of the actual numbers, is just pure fantasy. You need to create this fantasy world because you are aware that 36min at 5.93 w/kg is not beyond "what is humanly possible" without PEDs.

You live in a fantasy world, but I do not.

edit: and btw it is "hablas ingles". You can't even get it right when you're trying to troll me.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Maybe you can also explain to me why a very common pattern of power output in racing is 90% of the time spent positively rolling around at about 200w and then max power efforts occur at the end of stages? The AIS has been measuring this stuff in stage racing for over 12yrs. We knew in the 90s that the highest average 5min, 20min and 30min power outputs always come at the END of stages in stage races or one day races.

Maybe I am reading this completely wrong but are you saying nothing has changed in this clean peloton in comparison to the naughties?

A little bit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=702mu0o3xXY

?

LeMond being at 5.9w/k that day, good to sea all of Sky are capable of tha.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Again, not what I am arguing. 60 minutes 100% FTP then 2 minutes at FTP+33-66%.

Sorry but I'll ask this again, where did you pull the plus 33-66% for 2mins value from? Where is the evidence that Froome rode at 33-66% above his threshold power for 2min? I agree that this is rather unrealistic but its a moot point if that isn't anywhere near what Froome actually did.

33-66% above FTP is pretty fantastical but somewhere around 15-25% above FTP for 2min is right in the ballpark of what is possible after a 60min effort at FTP.

Say your FTP is 400w.

15-25% above that is 460-500W. An increase in power of that magnitude for about 2min at the end of a 50km ITT is very possible indeed. But as stated previously, it would still depend on the course, a technical course with many corners and anaerobic accelerations would result in a lesser increase in power at the end. A smoother course with more even pacing would allow a stronger anaerobic effort to be put in at the end.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Maybe I am reading this completely wrong but are you saying nothing has changed in this clean peloton in comparison to the naughties?



LeMond being at 5.9w/k that day, good to sea all of Sky are capable of tha.

I'm responding to Dear Wiggo who reckons that it is physiologically impossible to hold threshold power for 36min and then increase power output for about 2min.

I explained nicely that this is incorrect. He trolled back and derailed the discussion.

Nobody really needs my explanation anyway. It's plainly obvious that endurance athletes "kick" at the end of a race.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Nobody really needs my explanation anyway. It's plainly obvious that endurance athletes "kick" at the end of a race.

I would say that is a genuine truism, and something that people should be able to relate to

 

[Bala Verde]

And, do not forget, they do it day after day.

At least Evans got the message yesterday.

Evans got the message during last year's tour when the SKY doms rode him into submission.

Froome developed that last 1k acceleration/kick/sprint out of nowhere. He could just do it when he joined sky. He is not only competitive in ITTs and uphill (the steeper the better; all about the zigzag), he also has a great acceleration/sprint at the end of tough mountain stages. Like many riders before him, he has the ability to turn on an afterburner, while not being affected by "the red." Once the afterburner is shut off, he can fall back to his uphill 450W cruising pace. Other guys who could accelerate away and continue at a ridiculously high pace at one point or another included Pantani, Armstrong, Rasmussen, Contador, Ricco.