Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[roundabout]

I think that there should be a few SRM files from Valverde around the net.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Then came the '90s where it seemed like even Joe Also-Ran could climb like a champion, so we'll just ignore the 20-ish years that followed, go back to when riders became clean again and add guys like Wiggins and Froome into the mix. It'd be an understatement to say they stuck out like sore thumbs. They'd be sore arms.

Sorry, not even then were chumps turning into champions.

Lets look at the Dirty years

Indurain: Very credible buildup. Pre-epo already heralded as Spains great GT hope, not just by the Spanish, but also making headlines in Dutch papers. Slow but widely repeated buildup in the TdF.
Riis: Transformation
Ulrich: Amateur worlds, first TdF second
Pantani: 3/2/1 in Babygiro as amateur. Second Giro as pro wins 2 stages.
Lance: Transformation
Sastre; Very slow start (and considering his teams we can expect the worst)
Contador: Young superstar.
Evans: Long career. always been a GT contender.
Wiggins: Transformation
Froome: Transformation
Nibali: Young superstar

So in the last 50 years of the TdF we have four guys who manage not only to become the best TT/climbers, there's also no indication earlier in their career they were especially talented.

Bjarne, Lance, Bradley, Chris.

The first two managed to do this by being truly dirty. But really, the last two are clean. Not only that they manage to beat a guy like Contador.

Seriously, someone thinking Brad and Chris are clean are delusional, lack basic reasoning skills, or know nothing about cycling and are just parrotting the talkingheads on TV.

 

[Eagle]

Re: Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

Obviously Sky haven't but which teams / riders have released their SRM data out of these ?
Contador /TS
Nibali /Astana
Quintana / Valverde / MS
Van Gardener / BMC

Do you think those guys are clean? All of those riders/teams have major connections with doping

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Then came the '90s where it seemed like even Joe Also-Ran could climb like a champion, so we'll just ignore the 20-ish years that followed, go back to when riders became clean again and add guys like Wiggins and Froome into the mix. It'd be an understatement to say they stuck out like sore thumbs. They'd be sore arms.

Sorry, not even then were chumps turning into champions.

Lets look at the Dirty years

Indurain: Very credible buildup. Pre-epo already heralded as Spains great GT hope, not just by the Spanish, but also making headlines in Dutch papers. Slow but widely repeated buildup in the TdF.
Riis: Transformation
Ulrich: Amateur worlds, first TdF second
Pantani: 3/2/1 in Babygiro as amateur. Second Giro as pro wins 2 stages.
Lance: Transformation
Sastre; Very slow start (and considering his teams we can expect the worst)
Contador: Young superstar.
Evans: Long career. always been a GT contender.
Wiggins: Transformation
Froome: Transformation
Nibali: Young superstar

So in the last 50 years of the TdF we have four guys who manage not only to become the best TT/climbers, there's also no indication earlier in their career they were especially talented.

Bjarne, Lance, Bradley, Chris.

The first two managed to do this by being truly dirty. But really, the last two are clean. Not only that they manage to beat a guy like Contador.

Seriously, someone thinking Brad and Chris are clean are delusional, lack basic reasoning skills, or know nothing about cycling and are just parrotting the talkingheads on TV.

Sorry, but using a Conconi client from the 80's as an example of a very credible buildup invalidates whatever point you were trying to make.

 

[Franklin]

Say what? Did you miss the caption dirty years?

Watch out where you jerk that knee, you might strain it.

 

[roundabout]

nice non-sequitur there.

but ok, I'll explain it slower this time

how do you know that Indurain was particularly talented when he had been a Conconi client since early in his career

but it's cute to see you get angry when you get called out on your bs

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

Obviously Sky haven't but which teams / riders have released their SRM data out of these ?
Contador /TS
Nibali /Astana
Quintana / Valverde / MS
Van Gardener / BMC

Do you think those guys are clean? All of those riders/teams have major connections with doping

Well two have been popped so no, the others I don't know either way.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

nice non-sequitur there.

but ok, I'll explain it slower this time

how do you know that Indurain was particularly talented when he had been a Conconi client since early in his career

but it's cute to see you get angry when you get called out on your bs

I'm not angry, I have at least skill to read posts and not to erect a strawman.

Now onto the subject. We are talking about transforming riders versus riders who from the start of their career had been GT potentials. Be it natural or by doping, otherwise a Pantani or Ulrich would not be on the list.

Now we zoom into Indurain, a guy that clearly gets you foaming at the mouth.

From his first years Journos reported about him as a GT hopeful. Those journalists "probably" did not have access to the training program of Indurain, so they based it on what they saw.

In his first year he won a TT in the Vuelta.
In his second year he won the L'Avenir

These are facts. And nowhere do I deny this was helped by shady medical assitance.

Now please show me that Lance, Bjarne, Bradley or Wiggins had a similar showing in their first years. Wel... they had not. And that was the subject at hand.

Nowhere do I deny Indurain was succesful on the basis of blood doping. That you try to erect that strawman is, let me use the word... ah yes... cute.

Also, it's well known Indurain paid Conconi as it was found out by Sandro Donati and confirmed by erwin Nijboer. But that is abojut the Banesto years. I'm seriously very curious to a source that shows that Reynolds invested that kind of money in first year pro Indurain.

And before you erect yet another strawman: There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that Indurain doped from day 1. I just wonder if he got the money and support to immediately be tossed in the hands of Conconi.... or that Reynolds decided to go the extra mile after his first (or second year).

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

His V02 score is probably "off the charts" probably pushing a 99.9

If you assume average efficiency and that he can maintain 90% of VO2max for 40 min, then 6.1 W/kg is possible with a VO2max as "low" as 80 mL/min/kg.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

If you assume average efficiency and that he can maintain 90% of VO2max for 40 min, then 6.1 W/kg is possible with a VO2max as "low" as 80 mL/min/kg.

If you assume average efficiency is more than 24%, yes. I'm not familiar with all the literature, but I've only come across two studies of cyclists claiming this, one of 71 riders, and the study of just eleven riders that you posted a graph from.

On the other hand, if you assume it’s more like 18-20%, as more than half a dozen studies totaling hundreds of subjects have reported--including one study of 69 riders that was specifically designed in response to the claims of the study of eleven riders finding high efficiencies--then you need a V02max of at least around 96-98.

But the easiest way to settle this would just be for Sky to publish Froome’s efficiency, wouldn’t it?

And it would be nice to see other riders, too. Because if all it takes to put out 6.1 watts/kg is average efficiency, a V02max of 80 and a fractional utilization of 90%, one would expect to see a lot of riders putting out this much power, wouldn't one? A V02max of 80 is nothing special, the mean value of climbers in one of the large studies of pro cyclists was about this high. If an average pro climber V02max coupled with an average efficiency and a utilization that according to one of your own studies is about average is enough to generate 6.1 watts/kg, there should be a lot of guys in the peloton doing this.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

If you assume average efficiency and that he can maintain 90% of VO2max for 40 min, then 6.1 W/kg is possible with a VO2max as "low" as 80 mL/min/kg.

If you assume average efficiency is more than 24%, yes. On the other hand, if you assume it’s more like 20%, you need a V02max of around 96-98.

But the easiest way to settle this would just be for Sky to publish Froome’s efficiency, wouldn’t it?

Because I think we can all agree that Froome is not average.

Oh to see the day when coggan finds performances to be suspicious. We always need to remember he and his mentor defended the same way against accusations that Armstrong doped...how did that turn out again?

 

[ice&fire]

Re:

nice non-sequitur there.

but ok, I'll explain it slower this time

how do you know that Indurain was particularly talented when he had been a Conconi client since early in his career

but it's cute to see you get angry when you get called out on your bs

He won the Spanish U23 road race championship at the age of 18.

 

[M Sport]

Re: Re:

Lastly, I don't think you would use it to sanction but you would certainly use it to increase targeting.

How can it increase targeting beyond what it already is?

All WT riders are already targets, in particular the GC contenders. How is it going to increase the targeting?

What about points jersey contenders, or flatter land domestiques? Those riders are not about W/kg up longer climbs. They are conserving as much as possible in order to do their job.

I don't believe the targeting of the GC contenders is anyway effective, we are probably more likely to see them being busted by methods outside anti-doping controls than because of them i.e. police investigations, other rider or team testimony, etc. That aside my comment was aimed at the Froome type transformations of 2011 rather than providing further targeting of current GC riders. Arguably you could add in other Sky riders since 2011. I think there would have been a pretty obvious change in Froome's power data over the course of 2011, and maybe the testing didn't keep up with that change.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Sky don't use SRMs. Haven't for a couple of years.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

If you assume average efficiency and that he can maintain 90% of VO2max for 40 min, then 6.1 W/kg is possible with a VO2max as "low" as 80 mL/min/kg.

If you assume average efficiency is more than 24%, yes. I'm not familiar with all the literature, but I've only come across two studies of cyclists claiming this, one of 71 riders, and the study of just eleven riders that you posted a graph from.

On the other hand, if you assume it’s more like 18-20%, as more than half a dozen studies totaling hundreds of subjects have reported--including one study of 69 riders that was specifically designed in response to the claims of the study of eleven riders finding high efficiencies--then you need a V02max of at least around 96-98..

Not more than 24%, but 24% exactly...and you should look a bit more carefully at the studies you cited previously. One, for example, used a KingCycle trainer, which doesn't directly measure power but merely estimates it, whereas another used a mechanically-braked Monark ergometer, which is known to have a higher O2 cost at a given power than electronically-braked ergometers.

Lastly, although Asker Jeukendrup is a friend of mine, the study of his to which you refer is one that I imagine he would like to have as a "do-over", as for reasons unknown the efficiencies are suspiciously low (e.g., significantly lower than expected for the untrained subjects).

One other point-of-reference: Chris Boardman's efficiency while pedaling at hour record cadence and in the aero position was 22.6%, a value that Peter Keen considered less impressive than his VO2max of 90 mL/min/kg or the 90% of it that he was apparently able to maintain for 1 h.*

*Which really might be a better way of discussing things - that is, rather than debate VO2max and % of VO2max, it might simpler to just compare estimates of sustained VO2 against the 90 x 0.9 = 81 mL/min/kg that Boardman seemingly maintained (my best best in the lab was ~65 mL/min/kg for 75 min).

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Oh to see the day when coggan finds performances to be suspicious. We always need to remember he and his mentor defended the same way against accusations that Armstrong doped...how did that turn out again?

You may think that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, but all it does is undermine your own credibility. The fact is that I never defended Armstrong.

 

[M Sport]

Re:

Sky don't use SRMs. Haven't for a couple of years.

Not sure who this was too but as a general FYI to others here Sky switched to Stages power meters at the start of 2014 and stayed on them this year. Some riders are using the new prototype double sided versions.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Lastly, I don't think you would use it to sanction but you would certainly use it to increase targeting.

How can it increase targeting beyond what it already is?

All WT riders are already targets, in particular the GC contenders. How is it going to increase the targeting?

What about points jersey contenders, or flatter land domestiques? Those riders are not about W/kg up longer climbs. They are conserving as much as possible in order to do their job.

I don't believe the targeting of the GC contenders is anyway effective, we are probably more likely to see them being busted by methods outside anti-doping controls than because of them i.e. police investigations, other rider or team testimony, etc.

Which is exactly what I've been saying. These guys are already targeted, and power data isn't going to make a lick of difference in who to target, and it won't result in a doping sanction. Evidence of doping is needed for that.

That aside my comment was aimed at the Froome type transformations of 2011 rather than providing further targeting of current GC riders. Arguably you could add in other Sky riders since 2011. I think there would have been a pretty obvious change in Froome's power data over the course of 2011, and maybe the testing didn't keep up with that change.

Do not actual race results tell us the same thing - i.e. who has improved? Surely that paints pretty much the same picture?

How one wishes to interpret changes in form is the issue (be it expressed as results, climbing times or power data), not the fact that we already know who is going better/worse.

Now clearly there are riders who've had form changes and doped. Of that there is no question. But there are also riders who've had form changes without dope.

Reliably telling the difference is the problem. I don't think you can.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

Oh to see the day when coggan finds performances to be suspicious. We always need to remember he and his mentor defended the same way against accusations that Armstrong doped...how did that turn out again?

You may think that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, but all it does is undermine your own credibility. The fact is that I never defended Armstrong.

You defended your mentor's shoddy physiological studies of Armstrong, which has the same effect. Nice try.

And being lectured on "credibility" by you is not really something that will move the needle on my concern meter.

 

[Merckx index]

Not more than 24%, but 24% exactly

A minor point, obviously, but it’s 24.3% assuming 20,900 j/L. It would be 24.0 for 6.0 W/kg, but you said 6.1, which is where Tucker was drawing his line.

...and you should look a bit more carefully at the studies you cited previously. One, for example, used a KingCycle trainer, which doesn't directly measure power but merely estimates it, whereas another used a mechanically-braked Monark ergometer, which is known to have a higher O2 cost at a given power than electronically-braked ergometers.

As I said before, I’m not familiar with all the critical details of methods. But I have looked at more than a dozen papers now, and have only seen two that claim mean efficiencies in the 24-25% range. Plus another that didn’t determine GE, but had high DE values that may correspond to GE values in that high range, though I’m not sure.*

In any case, the great majority of reported values are still considerably lower. Again, I don’t claim to be the expert here, but I can see that many in the field are not persuaded. As recently as 2010, a review article on the subject said the range was 18-23%, and another review article, at least being honest about the discrepancy, claimed some problems with the Lucia work (the source of the graph you posted upthread).

Lastly, although Asker Jeukendrup is a friend of mine, the study of his to which you refer is one that I imagine he would like to have as a "do-over", as for reasons unknown the efficiencies are suspiciously low (e.g., significantly lower than expected for the untrained subjects).

Nothing stopping a scientist who wants a do-over from repeating the study and publishing a correction. It’s not like someone has to stand forever on a study he published. In any case, the efficiencies for all three groups were the same, and in line with values reported in many other studies, so I’m not sure why you single out the untrained group as suspiciously low.

One other point-of-reference: Chris Boardman's efficiency while pedaling at hour record cadence and in the aero position was 22.6%, a value that Peter Keen considered less impressive than his VO2max of 90 mL/min/kg or the 90% of it that he was apparently able to maintain for 1 h.*

Another point of reference: your colleague (former, maybe current, I don’t know) Coyle referred to a group averaging 21.9% as high in one of his studies. The low group’s mean was 20.4%. And as an aside, I've seen studies that claim that position on the bike doesn't significantly affect efficiency (as I think you're arguing in the Boardman case, and as you definitely suggested when I pointed out a study of TTers that found, like so many other studies, efficiencies in the 18-20% range).

*Which really might be a better way of discussing things - that is, rather than debate VO2max and % of VO2max, it might simpler to just compare estimates of sustained VO2 against the 90 x 0.9 = 81 mL/min/kg that Boardman seemingly maintained (my best best in the lab was ~65 mL/min/kg for 75 min).

Sure, but we’re even less likely to be given this value than ordinary V02max.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

You defended your mentor's shoddy physiological studies of Armstrong, which has the same effect.

And that's not true either. I defended the process by which Coyle's case study was evaluated and eventually published, despite its obvious shortcomings (both before and after Armstrong's confession).

And being lectured on "credibility" by you is not really something that will move the needle on my concern meter.

Again, repeatedly stating the same lies over and over again doesn't make them true: my credibility is unassailable, which is why, e.g., I get interviewed by the New York Times on the the general topic at hand.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

I have looked at more than a dozen papers now

How many of those have evaluated cyclists who can maintain a physiological steady-state while exercising at ~400 W?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Question. (More for maybe Merx I or Acoggan but anyone can chime in.)

To produce the watt's vs the HR we have seen is it reasonable to say that the person producing that type of performance would have to have a V02 above 97? I notice Merx you mention a specific range in one of your post before. I'm just curious what everyone's gut says.

I have to say when I look at that vid with data. I'm freaking out. I use my HR monitor with a Garmin 620 for my running. I don't always wear my HR monitor for various reasons but sometimes I'm trying to gauge my V02 fitness level as compared to how I have been performing. I'm 45 years old these days so my V02 sits in the upper 60's. Back in the day much different score. But the general function of a V02 score is to determine many training vs performance factors. So what I guess I'm rambling about is - HOW THE HELL would a pro cyclist not be aware of their score if they are professional? They should know more about their numbers than anyone else out there except for the trainer.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

You defended your mentor's shoddy physiological studies of Armstrong, which has the same effect.

And that's not true either. I defended the process by which Coyle's case study was evaluated and eventually published, despite its obvious shortcomings (both before and after Armstrong's confession).

And being lectured on "credibility" by you is not really something that will move the needle on my concern meter.

Again, repeatedly stating the same lies over and over again doesn't make them true: my credibility is unassailable, which is why, e.g., I get interviewed by the New York Times on the the general topic at hand.

To the first point, the denial is strong with you, isn't it?

Secondly, Donald Trump has been interviewed by the New York Times; the size of your ego really is much larger than your actual credibility...

 

[Franklin]

Mr. Coggan.

You skip over the extremely clear question MI asks. You might have missed it or perhaps I don't understand the answer.

Because if all it takes to put out 6.1 watts/kg is average efficiency, a V02max of 80 and a fractional utilization of 90%, one would expect to see a lot of riders putting out this much power, wouldn't one? A V02max of 80 is nothing special, the mean value of climbers in one of the large studies of pro cyclists was about this high. If an average pro climber V02max coupled with an average efficiency and a utilization that according to one of your own studies is about average is enough to generate 6.1 watts/kg, there should be a lot of guys in the peloton doing this.