Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Just curious if you have ever ranted / vented like this when a doper has been caught, Alex?

Yes, I've been highly vocal in my level of public pissed off-edness with respect to dopers, even more so their enablers, and the insidious impact they've had on the sport and the way it grossly distorted the opportunities not just for the riders but the support staff and how it has become associated with a corrupt environment in other ways.

I've also been pretty vocal about the bulldust scenario of having big time dopers or doping enablers still involved in running components of the sport and not cooperating/working with the anti-doping effort. My public comments are not confined to this forum though.

Sometimes I express my level of displeasure in person or privately though, like I did with one of my team mates went positive (back when I was racing). That was a pretty deflating experience.

My comments in this thread are in the context of what one can actually tell from such power estimates (of which there is substantial over reach and misunderstanding) and the methods of obtaining data. I think it helps the anti-doping effort to use legitimate means to catch dopers. Using illegitimate means blurs the ethical line between those doping and those seeking to uncover doping.

I also think a more critical appraisal of the current trend of using power estimates as evidence of doping is needed. It makes for a nice publicity opportunity for some though.

Do I think "current rider X" is doping? Perhaps, perhaps not. Often I simply don't know. I don't see why having a strong opinion one way or another is necessary. Not knowing is quite a legitimate position to hold especially when both positions are entirely plausible.

What I do do though is make a critical appraisal wrt the nature of evidence that can reliable inform such opinion. I prefer to avoid confirmation bias. If say my opinion leans strongly one way, then rather than look for "pixels" of data that support such a position, a sound skeptical (in a scientific sense) mind looks for reasons their opinion or belief might be wrong and seeks to assess all evidence and to question its validity, reliability and relevance. Do I always achieve that? No, but I try.

In science (not that I'm a scientist), it's quite OK to say we don't know, we don't have enough relevant information, and simply having more unhelpful or unreliable data is not going to help.

I think it's also a fallacy for those that use a shotgun approach to naming dopers to say they are right when someone is revealed to have doped, without evaluating the entirety of the success of their method. Do such people point out the number of times they are wrong? No, of course not.

It also doesn't take a genius to throw a dart at the dopeology podium chart and hit a blue square.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Well, let's bring up Wiggo into the conversation. He has recently said flat out, before his hour record attempt (I know, it is different, you don't ride 80-100 miles, then do a massive climb) but the point is, Wiggo claimed without even being trained he could do 410-415w for 1hr.

Thus, looking at Froome's supposed power numbers over those videos, besides some hard accelerations on attacks...there is nothing spectacular that anybody else isn't doing on that climb except for a few exceptions, and that is when he attacks. Then power drops down to 300w range as he recovers...then it picks back up shortly to the 400w range often.

What about Quintana on Monteaux climb? Yeah, Froome caught him, but Quintana was right there for a very long time taking pulls...must mean he is doped to the gills as well to do that initial attack on the group...

Hmm...off the top of my head...

• Wiggins' physiology ≠ Froome's Physiology

• As you mention, conditions and parcours matter. 137 hot miles might make a difference. 12 stages before and 8 stages after might be a factor

• Wiggins and Quintana are clean? News to me.

• If it's so easy, I wonder why everyone else in the peloton doesn't just ride faster? Since it's so possible and all.

• Why did no one ride at these speeds before oxygen vector doping took hold? Literally no one. Ever. Strange...

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Man, I really wish I had some links to videos of how *humans* used to race back in the 80's. The GTs back then were very, very different and no, it's not because of carbon fiber bikes.

John Swanson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqG_Hc0KF7A
A votre service.

Awesome. Thank you.

John Swanson

 

[Tonton]

I'm still not satisfied. How does one guy ride at 90+% of his MHR at 400W m/l, and then puts up 1,028W, then goes down to 300W for a couple of seconds, and his HR doesn't hardly change. Then he goes back to 400+W and then smashes 650W. His HR still doesn't hardly change. He doesn't fall from exhaustion, put himself "in the red" as Phil and Paul would say, but instead keeps going 400+W to the finish. Very much like a guy winning an Olympic long distance event by alternating all-out sprints and solid pace. WTF. The examples given as responses to my posts by other members showed that 90+% is possible with no or little HR change: long sustained effort at 90+% of MHR and all-out finish. That's clearly not the story here. From experience and pure common sense, I can't find an answer. Someone smart, please explain this to me .

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'm still not satisfied.

Perhaps read up on:
- measurement methods for HR used on bikes and how such data is filtered
- the time course for many physiological responses to an increase in energy demand (hint: many such responses have half lives in the order of 30-60 seconds and as such short range changes in power can result in only minor and significantly delayed variations in such responses)

e.g. do a ride with micro intervals, e.g. 10-sec 400W, 10-sec 100W and repeat for 20-minutes. Physiological responses such as HR will be pretty much the same as doing the 20-minutes at a steady 300W (assuming of course that doing 300W for 20-min is feasible for you). Things change when efforts are sustained for longer periods.

Also, when HR is at maximal sustainable levels, then changes up from that are relatively small for sizeable changes in energy demand.

Again, such information as this is pretty useless as an indicator of anything other than what his HR did (and how it was measured). HR is most definitely not a performance indicator, much less a doping indicator.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Just curious if you have ever ranted / vented like this when a doper has been caught, Alex?

Yes, I've been highly vocal in my level of public pissed off-edness with respect to dopers, even more so their enablers, and the insidious impact they've had on the sport and the way it grossly distorted the opportunities not just for the riders but the support staff and how it has become associated with a corrupt environment in other ways

Trust but verify: any public rants? Anything a pleb could read on the Internet? I see your posts here a lot and other than ragging on Frank Day, cozying up with Coggan, for the most part you appear as a defender of every suspect performance by pro cyclists.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I'm still not satisfied. How does one guy ride at 90+% of his MHR at 400W m/l, and then puts up 1,028W, then goes down to 300W for a couple of seconds, and his HR doesn't hardly change. Then he goes back to 400+W and then smashes 650W. His HR still doesn't hardly change. He doesn't fall from exhaustion, put himself "in the red" as Phil and Paul would say, but instead keeps going 400+W to the finish. Very much like a guy winning an Olympic long distance event by alternating all-out sprints and solid pace. WTF. The examples given as responses to my posts by other members showed that 90+% is possible with no or little HR change: long sustained effort at 90+% of MHR and all-out finish. That's clearly not the story here. From experience and pure common sense, I can't find an answer. Someone smart, please explain this to me .

A lot of people aren't either:
@Scienceofsport: Jump to 27:50 in video for the attack. 400W to 650W, stays > 550 for 30s, and HR barely shifts: https://t.co/I7Jyed8aKH I've no explanation

@Scienceofsport: @NoMapNoCompass If the motor applied force through the cranks, then maybe. I have no idea. Even my most cynical can't get there

An explanation would be wrong data. Believeable, but doesn't make sense; That would be either really bad equipment, or a sinister plot to manipulate data and implicate Sky. Motors are unbelieveable, but make sense...

 

[acoggan]

Re:

I really think you are quite rare.

If so, then so is my wife, and our children are going to grow up to be true mutants.

Try this: use the ACSM prediction formula:

VO2 (L/min) = 0.0108 x power (W) + 0.007 x body mass (kg)

to estimate the O2 cost of a 67 kg cyclist to produce 400 W, then assume an energy yield of 20.9 kJ per L of O2 consumed and calculate the gross efficiency.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Just curious if you have ever ranted / vented like this when a doper has been caught, Alex?

Yes, I've been highly vocal in my level of public pissed off-edness with respect to dopers, even more so their enablers, and the insidious impact they've had on the sport and the way it grossly distorted the opportunities not just for the riders but the support staff and how it has become associated with a corrupt environment in other ways

Trust but verify: any public rants? Anything a pleb could read on the Internet? I see your posts here a lot and other than ragging on Frank Day, cozying up with Coggan, for the most part you appear as a defender of every suspect performance by pro cyclists.

I wouldn't say a defender, just someone with a public image, a lot of knowledge and a good reputation making certain that all the facts fit 100% first. Don't forget that Alex makes his living from the sport. To be honest, if I was putting my real name and credentials next to my posts, I'd do the same thing.

Luckily I'm not, so I don't have to worry about getting things wrong occasionally.

 

[carton]

An explanation would be wrong data. Believeable, but doesn't make sense; That would be either really bad equipment, or a sinister plot to manipulate data and implicate Sky. Motors are unbelieveable, but make sense...

You do know no motor put forth can be used along with a crank based PM. So in order for the motor to be used the data must be fake, and thus make the scenario by your logic both unbelievable and nonsensical.

Also no concealable motor even theorized can output even close to 1kW. So that would have had to have been Froome regardless. So it wouldn't explain the lack of a HR spike. If he had uses the motor earlier, the spike would have had to have been magnified. If he used it later, you should see a drop-off after the spindly-leg-fueled effort, particularly since if he drops down to 300W with motor he'd essentially be soft-pedaling.

I evidently don't know what kind of doping is going on and even (sacrilege) whether or not it's (still?) going on. The power data seems suspicious, particularly the huge accelerations. But the accelerations on Montoux were similar to the ones matched and then bested by Contador in San Lorenzo. The averages push the boundaries of the physiologically attainable (as do similar feats by Wiggins, Quintana and even Carlos Sastre). And I do believe those boundaries do exist. The specific development pattern followed by Froome and Porte and now apparently Thomas looks similar and is, to put it mildly, awfully particular.

But after days of debate all I can conclude on the heart rate data is that seems to indicate that however it happened Chris Froome apparently has a very unique circulatory system.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Just curious if you have ever ranted / vented like this when a doper has been caught, Alex?

Yes, I've been highly vocal in my level of public pissed off-edness with respect to dopers, even more so their enablers, and the insidious impact they've had on the sport and the way it grossly distorted the opportunities not just for the riders but the support staff and how it has become associated with a corrupt environment in other ways

Trust but verify: any public rants? Anything a pleb could read on the Internet? I see your posts here a lot and other than ragging on Frank Day, cozying up with Coggan, for the most part you appear as a defender of every suspect performance by pro cyclists.

I wouldn't say a defender,

I didn't ask you to.

I also didn't say he IS a defender.

Just that he appears to be.

If you don't know, you would think you would not say anything. But the vociferous responses from both Coggan and Simmons, and when it was Wiggo, Krebs Cycle, speaks to far more than "they don't know and want to be 100% before..." - well I have never seen one of these rants, and asking for one seems pretty fricken' fair to me.

In case you missed the point of my post: have you ever seen Alex have a rant about a doper?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

An explanation would be wrong data. Believeable, but doesn't make sense; That would be either really bad equipment, or a sinister plot to manipulate data and implicate Sky. Motors are unbelieveable, but make sense...

You do know no motor put forth can be used along with a crank based PM. So in order for the motor to be used the data must be fake, and thus make the scenario by your logic both unbelievable and nonsensical.

Also no concealable motor even theorized can output even close to 1kW. So that would have had to have been Froome regardless. So it wouldn't explain the lack of a HR spike. If he had uses the motor earlier, the spike would have had to have been magnified. If he used it later, you should see a drop-off after the spindly-leg-fueled effort, particularly since if he drops down to 300W with motor he'd essentially be soft-pedaling.

I evidently don't know what kind of doping is going on and even (sacrilege) whether or not it's (still?) going on. The power data seems suspicious, particularly the huge accelerations. But the accelerations on Montoux were similar to the ones matched and then bested by Contador in San Lorenzo. The averages push the boundaries of the physiologically attainable (as do similar feats by Wiggins, Quintana and even Carlos Sastre). And I do believe those boundaries do exist. The specific development pattern followed by Froome and Porte and now apparently Thomas looks similar and is, to put it mildly, awfully particular.

But after days of debate all I can conclude on the heart rate data is that seems to indicate that however it happened Chris Froome apparently has a very unique circulatory system.

Nope. I have no idea how a motor would work. I don't know how a power monitor measures power. Bike's aren't my thing (even if watching other people ride them is).

But yeah, we all agree that there is something surreal about his riding. It'll make a great episode of Oprah in 12 years.

 

[IndianCyclist]

I'm still not satisfied. How does one guy ride at 90+% of his MHR at 400W m/l, and then puts up 1,028W, then goes down to 300W for a couple of seconds, and his HR doesn't hardly change. Then he goes back to 400+W and then smashes 650W. His HR still doesn't hardly change. He doesn't fall from exhaustion, put himself "in the red" as Phil and Paul would say, but instead keeps going 400+W to the finish. Very much like a guy winning an Olympic long distance event by alternating all-out sprints and solid pace. WTF. The examples given as responses to my posts by other members showed that 90+% is possible with no or little HR change: long sustained effort at 90+% of MHR and all-out finish. That's clearly not the story here. From experience and pure common sense, I can't find an answer. Someone smart, please explain this to me .

A lot of people aren't either:
@Scienceofsport: Jump to 27:50 in video for the attack. 400W to 650W, stays > 550 for 30s, and HR barely shifts: https://t.co/I7Jyed8aKH I've no explanation

@Scienceofsport: @NoMapNoCompass If the motor applied force through the cranks, then maybe. I have no idea. Even my most cynical can't get there

An explanation would be wrong data. Believeable, but doesn't make sense; That would be either really bad equipment, or a sinister plot to manipulate data and implicate Sky. Motors are unbelieveable, but make sense...

One explanation could be that these are dynamic data. When there is an increase in power by the legs, that increase comes firstly from anaerobic system and then from the aerobic system. The heart rate cannot increase instantaneously but takes about 10s - 1min to actually increase especially true at high heart rates. Then there is something called measurement delay of the HR monitor itself order of 1-2 s

 

[M Sport]

We know the power measurement was via SRM so it rules out any talk of a motor. High quality pharmacy involved.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Try this: use the ACSM prediction formula:

VO2 (L/min) = 0.0108 x power (W) + 0.007 x body mass (kg)

to estimate the O2 cost of a 67 kg cyclist to produce 400 W, then assume an energy yield of 20.9 kJ per L of O2 consumed and calculate the gross efficiency.

I get 24%. But then how do you explain all these studies reporting lower values? I’ve never seen a study reporting a mean value that high, and very few individuals in any study with a value that high. I don’t know the literature that well, but there seems to be a near consensus that mean values are 20% or lower, with a SD of less than 1%. In that first link I provided, there were seventeen subjects, each tested three separate times, so a total of 51 values, and not one of these values was as high as 23%.

Are there major differences in the way some groups measure this value?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm still not satisfied. How does one guy ride at 90+% of his MHR at 400W m/l, and then puts up 1,028W, then goes down to 300W for a couple of seconds, and his HR doesn't hardly change. Then he goes back to 400+W and then smashes 650W. His HR still doesn't hardly change. He doesn't fall from exhaustion....

Whatever the PED is, it gives him incredibly long time to exhaustion.

 

[Random Direction]

I'm still not satisfied. How does one guy ride at 90+% of his MHR at 400W m/l, and then puts up 1,028W, then goes down to 300W for a couple of seconds, and his HR doesn't hardly change. Then he goes back to 400+W and then smashes 650W. His HR still doesn't hardly change. He doesn't fall from exhaustion, put himself "in the red" as Phil and Paul would say, but instead keeps going 400+W to the finish. Very much like a guy winning an Olympic long distance event by alternating all-out sprints and solid pace. WTF. The examples given as responses to my posts by other members showed that 90+% is possible with no or little HR change: long sustained effort at 90+% of MHR and all-out finish. That's clearly not the story here. From experience and pure common sense, I can't find an answer. Someone smart, please explain this to me .

The closest sports analogy to having a base pace followed by variable length sprints followed again by a base pace may be cross country skiing. Which also has periodic variable length rest periods in most races. For a relatively independent view (I. e not one potentially clouded by real or perceived conflicts of interest such as those with an interest in selling services to cyclists), suggest looking up the cross country skiing heart rate physiological response literature. If I had snow and a few elite athletes around I'd run a few tests myself.

There is an interesting, but likely irrelevant discussion going on regarding 100 percent certainty. Should this not instead be a discussion of probability of doping based on a series of variables? Given the number of positives or outed riders in the past, and the level of their performances in a series of conditions, the data may well be rich enough to construct something quite robust. Unfortunately the first variable with a probability greater than zero would simply be being a pro cyclist.

Of course the visual experience of those who have seen and smelled doping in the past would likely be more accurate than a model, but that won't satisfy those for whom the only proof is scientific or who are tied to political or team agendas.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

fhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-froome-to-undergo-independent-testing-to-try-to-prove-hes-clean

"I want the riders’ power data to be stored in a server - we’ve been discussing it with the ISSUL (Institute of Sports Science of the University of Lausanne). I'm ready to do it," said Grappe.

No good here, Grappe is apparently a Sky stooge, even though they didn't choose him to analyse Froome's data in 2013.

You do know that L'Equipe (owned by ASO) gave the data to Grappe. Grappe also cleared Armstorng of doping based on data..............

you're welcome

Talk about missing the point, exactly L'equipe gave it to Grappe, not Sky ... Blame LEquipe if Grappe isn't suitable.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Just curious if you have ever ranted / vented like this when a doper has been caught, Alex?

Yes, I've been highly vocal in my level of public pissed off-edness with respect to dopers, even more so their enablers, and the insidious impact they've had on the sport and the way it grossly distorted the opportunities not just for the riders but the support staff and how it has become associated with a corrupt environment in other ways

Trust but verify: any public rants? Anything a pleb could read on the Internet? I see your posts here a lot and other than ragging on Frank Day, cozying up with Coggan, for the most part you appear as a defender of every suspect performance by pro cyclists.

Frank provides some light comic relief.

Probably anyone who's read my comments about the topic on facebook, or a few other forums like local cycling and triathlon forums. Can't say I keep a record of such things to make it easy to point to them. FB search is pretty non existent and it'd often be on others pages than mine. Although I admit that my latest minor rant was wondering how Tucker reckons 6.1W/kg for 40-min = a VO2max in the mid 90s. That is kind of strange.

As for in the clinic, perhaps my comments on the Impey case where I saw sizeable holes to shoot? Or O'Grady, although I may have made my Stuey mate comments elsewhere. USAC history. LA of course. Rants about Vino and his ilk running stuff. On UK TT forum pointing out Sky making strange hiring decisions. Just a few random examples. Like I say, I don't keep count/links and not all comments are written down in public fora either.

I recall interactions with a former (anonymous) world champ rider who posted on BNA forum a few years back (they have one long doping thread there, a kind of sensible friendly version of the clinic). I've also posted stats on doping controls

And I'm used to opening people's eye to the problem/scourge in many places.

Keep in mind that when a position is put, I like to think about it critically and challenge the premises, assumptions, or facts used to put it, especially if I think the poster hasn't already done so already when putting forth their position. So I suppose the net result on this forum is it probably means my posts appear "unbalanced" given the tendency for "that performance == doping" being a common but not well backed up stance. Such posters may well be right, but I think it matters that they got the right answer via a sound methodology, rather than by sheer luck or random chance.

I've posted amalgamated climbing speed data which clearly showed the impact of blood doping from the early 90s and then the subsequent impact of various forms of doping control and alternative doping methods had on the big picture.

As 42x16 mentioned, I post using my real name unlike most. I do on every forum/social media platform I use and as a result I probably take more care not to make unsubstantiated accusations. I wonder how the clinic would behave if everyone's ID was known?

 

[nuvolablu]

Dr Ferrari on Froome's data on Ventoux :
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=forum.thread&id=7367

"Ho già commentato a suo tempo la prestazione di Froome sul Ventoux.
Picchi di 1000w per pochi secondi sono possibili, anche se tutti da verificare .
Insolita invece è la Fc a soli 160/min : può darsi che questa sia la FCmax di Froome, anche se anomala per l' età e per le caratteristiche aerobiche esplosive del britannico.
Di sicuro per garantire queste potenze aerobiche deve esserci una gittata sistolica da cavallo o un trasporto / utilizzo periferico dell' O2 da antilope Pronghorn"

"I've already commented at that time Froome performance on Ventoux.
Peaks of 1000w for a few seconds are possible, but they should be verified.
Unusual however is the hr of 160/min: it may be that this is the HRmax of Froome, but it would be odd for his age and for his characteristics of aerobic explosiveness.
Certainly to ensure these aerobic powers he must have the same cardiac output of a horse or the same carriage/ peripheral utilization of O2 of a Pronghorn antelope "

 

[rick james]

So the dawg is a horse

 

[pastronef]

Re:

So the dawg is a horse

I snorted my coffee
that was funny

 

[neineinei]

"The pronghorn is the fastest land mammal in the Western Hemisphere, being built for maximum predator evasion through running. The top speed is very hard to measure accurately and varies between individuals; it can run 35 mph for 4 mi (56 km/h for 6 km), 42 mph for 1 mi (67 km/h for 1.6 km), and 55 mph for 0.5 mi (88.5 km/h for .8 km). It is often cited as the second-fastest land animal, second only to the cheetah. It can, however, sustain high speeds longer than cheetahs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronghorn

 

[The Hegelian]

Re:

Ross Tucker on radio about an hour ago

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

Excellent listen - thanks very much for posting.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

There's a strong inverse relationship between economy (efficiency) and VO2max as measured for a dozen world-class cyclists.

I wouldn't consider an R2 of only 0.41 to be "strong".

Interpretation of the coefficient of determination is actually largely dependent on the context, in some cases a R² of .10 is impressive, while in other situations you're only going to be satisfied with your model if you found a R² of over .90. As we're dealing with physiological data and phenomena that are probably affected by multiple factors, I feel that finding such a coefficient of determination in a bivariate relationship is actually quite impressive. However, in the context we're discussing the matter, we should be warned that, in the sample of that study, there's still .59 (59% of the variance) left that you cannot account for using the relationship between VO2max and Gross Efficiency.

However, more importantly, R² is a sample statistic and the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient is only a point-estimate of the population correlation parameter. Given the low sample size (11) and relatively large standard error (0.25), the actual population parameter for the correlation may differ quite a bit from the value obtained in this sample. As the results section of the paper is severely lacking, I've reanalysed the data using the reported raw data to calculate a confidence interval for the correlation. While my correlation coefficient (-.66) is somewhat different from one reported in the paper (-.64), probably due to the fact the authors rounded the raw data to one decimal, the 95% Confidence Interval for Rho, calculated using the Fisher z' transformation method, is quite wide: 95% CI [-0.901,-0.094]. This indicates that we should not hold too much to exact value of the point-estimate of -.66 (-.64 in the paper), as it may be quite unstable over different samples. To get a more accurate or narrow estimate of the population correlation, we need more data points.