Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[King Boonen]

Is Gesinks power avg. on Strava actual power meter data or calculated based on his alleged weight and calculated/statistical data (Strava's algorithm ain't bad). We really need more riders to publish their actual data, so the pseudo scientists could do their magic.

Froome's low HR appears to be inline with former data available from TrainingPeaks however.

It's from a power meter as it's displaying weighted average power. If it were calculated it would say estimated average power (I compared his data to one of my rides as I don't have a power meter and a friends who does have a power meter).

 

[WillemS]

Is Gesinks power avg. on Strava actual power meter data or calculated based on his alleged weight and calculated/statistical data (Strava's algorithm ain't bad). We really need more riders to publish their actual data, so the pseudo scientists could do their magic.

Froome's low HR appears to be inline with former data available from TrainingPeaks however.

It's from a power meter as it's displaying weighted average power. If it were calculated it would say estimated average power (I compared his data to one of my rides as I don't have a power meter and a friends who does have a power meter).

As far as I know this is correct, the presence of the weighted average power statistic indicates the use of a power meter. Strava applies some kind of smoothing function to estimate what your average watts would have been if you exclude the jumps in measured power by a power meter caused by various factors (wind, etc.). They say it's their " best guess at your average power if you rode at the exact same wattage the entire ride." (Source: Strava Training Glossery for Cycling)

 

[Gregga]

Another Skyleaks video by Vayer, from Vuelta 2014

http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/

 

[WillemS]

Re:

Another Skyleaks video by Vayer, from Vuelta 2014

http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/

This video is far less impressive, his heart rate even goes up when he attacks and he even hits a ceiling, losing power while remaining at an elevated heart rate.

 

[franic]

Is Gesinks power avg. on Strava actual power meter data or calculated based on his alleged weight and calculated/statistical data (Strava's algorithm ain't bad). We really need more riders to publish their actual data, so the pseudo scientists could do their magic.

Froome's low HR appears to be inline with former data available from TrainingPeaks however.

It's from a power meter as it's displaying weighted average power. If it were calculated it would say estimated average power (I compared his data to one of my rides as I don't have a power meter and a friends who does have a power meter).

As far as I know this is correct, the presence of the weighted average power statistic indicates the use of a power meter. Strava applies some kind of smoothing function to estimate what your average watts would have been if you exclude the jumps in measured power by a power meter caused by various factors (wind, etc.). They say it's their " best guess at your average power if you rode at the exact same wattage the entire ride." (Source: Strava Training Glossery for Cycling)

It’s Strava’s version of Golden Cheetah Normalised Power

 

[harryh]

Re:

So, to summarise, the data that was overlaid was Froome's data obtained by Vayer. That data shows an average of 5.88 wkg for the climb, which is not particularly suspicious for the stage winner. His HR shown on the screen peaks in the low 160s. This is contextualised by Froome's assertion that he can't get his HR above 170. Given that he would be fatigued and that sharper peaks in HR will have been "smoothed out", there doesn't appear to be anything untoward.
It looks to me as though Vayer has done a pretty good PR job for Froome. I wonder if the data was given to him deliberately.

Yes. David Salander

 

[MartinGT]

So someone is leaking the videos? A disgruntled ex employee wanting the truth out......

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

So someone is leaking the videos? A disgruntled ex employee wanting the truth out......

Wiggins!

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

So someone is leaking the videos? A disgruntled ex employee wanting the truth out......

Wiggins!

Well, let's wait for his files, then.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Back to the interesting storylines though, is his static heartrate during his attack. Whatever the number is, it should change. My intuition says that even thinking about attacking should change it. Unless there is a HR monitor machine calibration error, the only explanation is a motor.

I may have diluted my point: the lack of raise in HR is what struck me the most and what I can't understand. A motor...Interesting. But if the HR doesn't increase it would imply that the motor does all the work. I don't think that a device can generate the 2.21 Gigawatts , or rather the jump from 400 to over 1,000 watts. On the other hand, what if Dawg's Max HR is, say 200, and he was cruising all along?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Is Gesinks power avg. on Strava actual power meter data or calculated based on his alleged weight and calculated/statistical data (Strava's algorithm ain't bad). We really need more riders to publish their actual data, so the pseudo scientists could do their magic.

Froome's low HR appears to be inline with former data available from TrainingPeaks however.

It's from a power meter as it's displaying weighted average power. If it were calculated it would say estimated average power (I compared his data to one of my rides as I don't have a power meter and a friends who does have a power meter).

As far as I know this is correct, the presence of the weighted average power statistic indicates the use of a power meter. Strava applies some kind of smoothing function to estimate what your average watts would have been if you exclude the jumps in measured power by a power meter caused by various factors (wind, etc.). They say it's their " best guess at your average power if you rode at the exact same wattage the entire ride." (Source: Strava Training Glossery for Cycling)

So Strava does some post processing of the power meter data?
Generating a number akin to Normalized Power?

OK, I'm now thinking Dear Wiggo's alarm at the dodgy Strava numbers (in another thread I think) was well justified.

I was under the impression that data on Strava from a power meter was unadulterated.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

VO2max testing is so last century and is, along with blood lactate testing, largely redundant in the age of power data and advanced analysis tools (and knowledge of how to use and interpret such data).

I greatly appreciate your input to this thread, but wrt this particular statement I have to add, it would be true if doping were not an issue and teams were transparent. As you well know, power data frequently are not published (and you and Coggan have been arguing all along it’s too difficult and/or expensive to do it for the entire peloton). That being the case, and not knowing the doping status of any particular rider, of course we look for parameters like V02max, lactate and efficiency, which can be used to estimate what an undoped rider’s maximum power could be.

VO2max just isn't all that practical for performance analysis/assessment and it's not used so much in aerobic endurance performance analysis/assessment nowadays. For example, British Rowing ceased doing VO2max tests in the early 2000's, so it doesn't surprise me that cycling doesn't bother much with it either, although there is much tradition in cycling even for performance assessment, hence VO2max tests still happen. It has its place in research of course.

When you consider the duration of rowing events are only a handful of minutes when maximal aerobic power is king and you are operating at VO2max, that should be quite telling they don't bother with such testing.

There's is ample historical data (even pre full *** era) on measured human maximums for things like efficiency, VO2max, partial utilisation of VO2max. 6.1-6.2W/kg is well inside those limits.

 

[bigcog]

Grappe:

"The power data we have, it’s confidential, because they belong to the riders, they belong to the teams," he told Reuters. “What is the point in publishing the power data because who is able to analyse it correctly? Very few people because there are so many factors to take into account - the weather, the length of the effort. Some, and I won't name them, are all wrong with it."

Presumably, some are Vayer, Tucker ...

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

"La Francaise des Jeux trainer, Frédéric Grappe, has come out in support of Lance Armstrong, after doping accusations have been leveled at him and the U.S. Postal team. In an in depth interview with L’Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong’s results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment."

http://stevetilford.com/2013/07/18/froome-power-released/

 

[durianrider]

I found the video uploaded on another channel and then added my edit to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m0ItxYf1n4

 

[bigcog]

Re:

"La Francaise des Jeux trainer, Frédéric Grappe, has come out in support of Lance Armstrong, after doping accusations have been leveled at him and the U.S. Postal team. In an in depth interview with L’Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong’s results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment."

http://stevetilford.com/2013/07/18/froome-power-released/

"One news outlet reported that Sky released the data to lequipe & lequipe chose Grappe to analyze the data. If true, Sky isn’t to blame for the poor choice in experts."

"SKY released the date to L’Equipe and allowed them to choose ANY expert they wanted. Grappe wasn’t the choice of Brailsford or SKY so a little unfair to criticise them for it."

 

[Mr.38%]

Is Gesinks power avg. on Strava actual power meter data or calculated based on his alleged weight and calculated/statistical data (Strava's algorithm ain't bad). We really need more riders to publish their actual data, so the pseudo scientists could do their magic.

Froome's low HR appears to be inline with former data available from TrainingPeaks however.

It's from a power meter as it's displaying weighted average power. If it were calculated it would say estimated average power (I compared his data to one of my rides as I don't have a power meter and a friends who does have a power meter).

As far as I know this is correct, the presence of the weighted average power statistic indicates the use of a power meter. Strava applies some kind of smoothing function to estimate what your average watts would have been if you exclude the jumps in measured power by a power meter caused by various factors (wind, etc.). They say it's their " best guess at your average power if you rode at the exact same wattage the entire ride." (Source: Strava Training Glossery for Cycling)

So Strava does some post processing of the power meter data?
Generating a number akin to Normalized Power?

OK, I'm now thinking Dear Wiggo's alarm at the dodgy Strava numbers (in another thread I think) was well justified.

I was under the impression that data on Strava from a power meter was unadulterated.

The number would only make sense if it was unadulterated.

Have the confirmed data of 3 riders on each climb and it would be easy to estimate power for the entire peloton. SKY is against the trend - clearly.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

So, to summarise, the data that was overlaid was Froome's data obtained by Vayer. That data shows an average of 5.88 wkg for the climb, which is not particularly suspicious for the stage winner. His HR shown on the screen peaks in the low 160s. This is contextualised by Froome's assertion that he can't get his HR above 170. Given that he would be fatigued and that sharper peaks in HR will have been "smoothed out", there doesn't appear to be anything untoward.
It looks to me as though Vayer has done a pretty good PR job for Froome. I wonder if the data was given to him deliberately.

What are you basing that on? On a climb as long as Ventoux that is very suspicious! It's higher than both pVAM and DpVAM. Can you show me a single ascent on this side of the passport that is as long (or longer) with the same output? (MTT not included, obviously)

 

[bewildered]

If it is indeed a leak from someone on the inside, then that fact is as damning as the data in these videos. If it gets him into a lab to do proper tests and his 2007 results are released also, then chapeau to Vayer whether you agree with him on Froome or not. What about the tests they say they have showing that he was a 'diamond in the rough' before they discovered he was 'riddled with' Bilharzia? Wasn't Julich quoted on those tests before? They couldn't figure out why he couldn't reproduce the numbers in a race?

 

[acoggan]

Is Gesinks power avg. on Strava actual power meter data or calculated based on his alleged weight and calculated/statistical data (Strava's algorithm ain't bad). We really need more riders to publish their actual data, so the pseudo scientists could do their magic.

Froome's low HR appears to be inline with former data available from TrainingPeaks however.

It's from a power meter as it's displaying weighted average power. If it were calculated it would say estimated average power (I compared his data to one of my rides as I don't have a power meter and a friends who does have a power meter).

As far as I know this is correct, the presence of the weighted average power statistic indicates the use of a power meter. Strava applies some kind of smoothing function to estimate what your average watts would have been if you exclude the jumps in measured power by a power meter caused by various factors (wind, etc.). They say it's their " best guess at your average power if you rode at the exact same wattage the entire ride." (Source: Strava Training Glossery for Cycling)

It’s Strava’s version of Golden Cheetah Normalised Power

GoldenCheetah is no more responsible for normalized power than Pinot and Grappe are for the idea of power profiling or BestBIkeSplit.com and CyclingPowerLabs (CPL) are for the models they use.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Back to the interesting storylines though, is his static heartrate during his attack. Whatever the number is, it should change. My intuition says that even thinking about attacking should change it. Unless there is a HR monitor machine calibration error, the only explanation is a motor.

I may have diluted my point: the lack of raise in HR is what struck me the most and what I can't understand.

One point I haven't seen mentioned by anyone else is the fact that heart rate monitors use noise-rejection algorithms to minimize artifacts due to, e.g., a PVC, the strap moving on the skin, etc. Those same algorithms also damp the response of the reported heart rate relative to actual changes.

That said, I suspect that the fact that his heart rate was already high relative to his own known low maximum had a lot to do with things.

 

[carton]

Re:

If it is indeed a leak from someone on the inside, then that fact is as damning as the data in these videos.

?

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Back to the interesting storylines though, is his static heartrate during his attack. Whatever the number is, it should change. My intuition says that even thinking about attacking should change it. Unless there is a HR monitor machine calibration error, the only explanation is a motor.

I may have diluted my point: the lack of raise in HR is what struck me the most and what I can't understand.

One point I haven't seen mentioned by anyone else is the fact that heart rate monitors use noise-rejection algorithms to minimize artifacts due to, e.g., a PVC, the strap moving on the skin, etc. Those same algorithms also damp the response of the reported heart rate relative to actual changes.

That said, I suspect that the fact that his heart rate was already high relative to his own known low maximum had a lot to do with things.

But then if bpm couldn't go higher because he was so close to his MHR, he wouldn't have been able to sustain his effort the way he did. You can only go so long at 90% or more of your MHR.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Keep in mind fatigue also lowers your HR. These are stage 15 or 9 where we get to see Froome's HR. It's going to be down ~5bpm at max effort from fatigue alone. Add in a lower MHR and this kind of thing is not unusual.

Max HR also falls with increasing fitness / as stroke volume increases.

And age

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

VO2max just isn't all that practical for performance analysis/assessment and it's not used so much in aerobic endurance performance analysis/assessment nowadays. For example, British Rowing ceased doing VO2max tests in the early 2000's, so it doesn't surprise me that cycling doesn't bother much with it either, although there is much tradition in cycling even for performance assessment, hence VO2max tests still happen. It has its place in research of course.

When you consider the duration of rowing events are only a handful of minutes when maximal aerobic power is king and you are operating at VO2max, that should be quite telling they don't bother with such testing.

Again, you’re talking about situations when better data are available. What are we supposed to do when those data aren’t furnished? Grappe even went the other way; given Froome's power data, he estimated a V02max, obviously taking pains to emphasize that it might be one of the highest ever, in order to justify Froome's performance.

There's is ample historical data (even pre full *** era) on measured human maximums for things like efficiency, VO2max, partial utilisation of VO2max. 6.1-6.2W/kg is well inside those limits.

It’s your opinion that 6.1-6.2 watts/kg are within reasonable limits. Tucker disagrees, and his reasoning makes use of the same relationships that are shown on your own blog. I understand the line is fuzzy, but you do have to assume that Froome is at the high end of all three, certainly at the high end of V02max and efficiency--e.g., V02max of 90 and efficiency of 23% at LT of 85. Just because you can find a very small number of individuals in history who have one of those parameters that high doesn't mean that someone with both or all three of those parameters that high is very likely.

As Ammatti pointed out, Froome's time yesterday corresponds to about 39:15 on ADH. No one has ever done a time like that clean. If 6.1-6.2 is well within limits, why not?

But as I emphasized before, the case against Froome should not rest on the argument that what he's doing is impossible for anyone, which is always going to be subject to debate. You can always postulate an extreme outlier. The better case is that he has come from nowhere to achieve that level, and did it almost literally overnight.