Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[the sceptic]

Re:

So we have data and the numbers are reasonable, hmm, good I'm almost glad of the back, it's reassuring.

As for Sky's reaction, easily demonised but if the data has been stolen and it affords their rivals insights into Froome's ability, why on earth would they be ok about it? Anyway glad it's out there, the legendary Ventoux alien attack exposed as being human.

I'm glad you've finally become a believer of pseudo-science jimmy! welcome onboard.

Hopefully this means that when vetooo or Vayer says Froome does something superhuman you will believe that as well?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

That heart rate is outrageous. For example in Ironman perfect heart rate is 155 bpm. For a nine hour effort. Not sprinting up a mountain.

But his average for an hour effort is very consistent with the 2011 training peaks file linked previously.
(and posted by Sky back then so not hacked)

155 bpm is consistent with a marathon like pace. Not a major effort. That is if your max HR is in the 190s, which I would expect.

His Max HR is very unlikely to be in the 190s

The Vuelta data is ~400W sustained effort pretty much for an hour (56 mins), with an spike at the end. The 169 max recorded is that will be not too far off his max in my mind. Probably his max is close to 175.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

data that is hard to interpret and could be interpreted in many ways,

lolnope. Try again.

Seriously. Are you just regurgitating Team Sky press releases? Looks like you might be. Not cool to do that without attribution. Come on. Fair's fair.

Okay, interpret the data, then. I've seen numerous interpretations, by non-experts and quoted experts, in this thread alone. Even carefully collected data in a controlled laboratory setting is often susceptible to diverting interpretations. What are you trying to do? Power playing you opinion through without any actual expertise when it comes down to data analysis? The ad hominem is strong with you.

Let's start with the ad hominem claim: lolnope. You just regurgitated exactly what Brailsford said to the press. So uh. Strike one for you, buddy.

Secondly what data analysis!?

You don't need to analyse a data file. If Chris could have done that in 2010 he would have stormed any race he chose. He didn't. In fact, he was hanging on to motorbikes. Giving his bike to Hendo. Getting dropped by Gerrans.

Analyse that.

 

[hrotha]

That's weak. Analyzing a data file is EXACTLY what we should be doing when we get our hands on a data file, no matter what your general opinion on Froome is.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

That heart rate is outrageous. For example in Ironman perfect heart rate is 155 bpm. For a nine hour effort. Not sprinting up a mountain.

But his average for an hour effort is very consistent with the 2011 training peaks file linked previously.
(and posted by Sky back then so not hacked)

155 bpm is consistent with a marathon like pace. Not a major effort. That is if your max HR is in the 190s, which I would expect.

His Max HR is very unlikely to be in the 190s

The Vuelta data is ~400W sustained effort pretty much for an hour (56 mins), with an spike at the end. The 169 max recorded is that will be not too far off his max in my mind. Probably his max is close to 175.

I don't understand how his MHR would be so low for an elite athlete. It should be in the 190's from anything I have read. I am 60 yrs and have MHR of over 160 and can sustain that for several minutes.
Just asking.

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

data that is hard to interpret and could be interpreted in many ways,

lolnope. Try again.

Seriously. Are you just regurgitating Team Sky press releases? Looks like you might be. Not cool to do that without attribution. Come on. Fair's fair.

Okay, interpret the data, then. I've seen numerous interpretations, by non-experts and quoted experts, in this thread alone. Even carefully collected data in a controlled laboratory setting is often susceptible to diverting interpretations. What are you trying to do? Power playing you opinion through without any actual expertise when it comes down to data analysis? The ad hominem is strong with you.

Let's start with the ad hominem claim: lolnope. You just regurgitated exactly what Brailsford said to the press. So uh. Strike one for you, buddy.

Secondly what data analysis!?

You don't need to analyse a data file. If Chris could have done that in 2010 he would have stormed any race he chose. He didn't. In fact, he was hanging on to motorbikes. Giving his bike to Hendo. Getting dropped by Gerrans.

Analyse that.

Not sure if you are new to the sport, but the hanging on to a motorbike was because of an injury and only a fool would suggest it were an indication of ability.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Max HR is primarily genetically limited, with an obvious slight decline with age.

Elite athletes can get there, unlike couch potatoes, and they can sustain efforts at a far high % of Max.
But all the training in the world doesn't shift your max HR much. (and any shift may just be a reflection of your fitness allowing you to push towards your real MaxHR).

The resting HR is a better judge of fitness, but even that is affected by genes.
Some elite athletes get into the low numbers, others sit at 50-60 bpm, but remain elite.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

data that is hard to interpret and could be interpreted in many ways,

lolnope. Try again.

Seriously. Are you just regurgitating Team Sky press releases? Looks like you might be. Not cool to do that without attribution. Come on. Fair's fair.

Okay, interpret the data, then. I've seen numerous interpretations, by non-experts and quoted experts, in this thread alone. Even carefully collected data in a controlled laboratory setting is often susceptible to diverting interpretations. What are you trying to do? Power playing you opinion through without any actual expertise when it comes down to data analysis? The ad hominem is strong with you.

Let's start with the ad hominem claim: lolnope. You just regurgitated exactly what Brailsford said to the press. So uh. Strike one for you, buddy.

Secondly what data analysis!?

You don't need to analyse a data file. If Chris could have done that in 2010 he would have stormed any race he chose. He didn't. In fact, he was hanging on to motorbikes. Giving his bike to Hendo. Getting dropped by Gerrans.

Analyse that.

I haven't even read the press release, the only thing I did was pointing to the file being interpreted in multiple ways, in this very thread and outside of it in "the real world". That's not regurgitating a press release, that's just stating what's happening right now. If you would lay down you coloured glasses for a minute, you would see that just a few post above this very one the data file is interpreted as being evidence of a "clean performance". I don't think it is, but I don't have a clue about interpreting this file, as I don't have the expertise nor exemplars of doped-up versus clean performances to compare it with. (Although I do have expertise in data analysis and statistics, I teach that stuff at a university.)

Some guys out there, allegedly with some expertise, give diverting interpretations, so while you may only see one possible interpretation, there are in fact several interpretations possible, each supported by statements drawn from (pseudo-)science. My original post pointed out that it is in Sky's interest to avoid that interpretation discussion as much as possible and they, whoohoo, seem to have succeeded. My post was about the strategy Sky has used in handling the situation, not to show my support for Sky (I don't have any support for them, I'm highly sceptical of their performances). The media's main interest have been carefully shifted into the direction of the act of hacking, not Froome's performance on Ventoux.

What I'm saying is that there is actually a total lack of media interest into Froome's performances and what they might mean and that Sky has successfully put a lid on the possible stories Froome's data points tell.

 

[hazaran]

Re: Re:

That heart rate is outrageous. For example in Ironman perfect heart rate is 155 bpm. For a nine hour effort. Not sprinting up a mountain.

But his average for an hour effort is very consistent with the 2011 training peaks file linked previously.
(and posted by Sky back then so not hacked)

155 bpm is consistent with a marathon like pace. Not a major effort. That is if your max HR is in the 190s, which I would expect.

His Max HR is very unlikely to be in the 190s

The Vuelta data is ~400W sustained effort pretty much for an hour (56 mins), with an spike at the end. The 169 max recorded is that will be not too far off his max in my mind. Probably his max is close to 175.

I don't understand how his MHR would be so low for an elite athlete. It should be in the 190's from anything I have read. I am 60 yrs and have MHR of over 160 and can sustain that for several minutes.
Just asking.

Your confusion seems to be that you think MHR is in any shape or form a determination of athletic performance. It is not. Some people have a max HR of 200, some people 150. It is simply a very individual number. As your HR nears your MHR, your level of exertion is higher. That's pretty much all you can tell from it.

 

[veganrob]

Re:

Max HR is primarily genetically limited, with an obvious slight decline with age.

Elite athletes can get there, unlike couch potatoes, and they can sustain efforts at a far high % of Max.
But all the training in the world doesn't shift your max HR much. (and any shift may just be a reflection of your fitness allowing you to push towards your real MaxHR).

The resting HR is a better judge of fitness, but even that is affected by genes.
Some elite athletes get into the low numbers, others sit at 50-60 bpm, but remain elite.

Does it still not seem odd that an elite athlete would have a MHR so low compared to the general population. Would he then need an enormous heart to pump so much blood. Is this where efficiency come into play. We are way into the Lance bigger heart myth now. The blood still needs to supply oxygen to the body to function at such a high level. Then what about blood pressure? That is really more important the MHR anyway.
As for resting HR, yes some elite endurance atletes are in the 40's. Mine is 54 with a huge , VO2 max of 42. I am in no way elite but can compete at a higher level in my age group when I want to.

edit. Thanks hazaran

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

 

[Lyon]

There is really nothing new in this and the data now only serve as a deflection from the real issues.

Some people are getting reassured by the normalness of the data. Normal for who? Normal for Chris Froome? Since when?

 

[Mr.38%]

If the data was copied from SKY computers, it would be interesting to compare it to the data allegedly given to l'Équipe in 2013, fudge factors and such.

 

[M Sport]

https://twitter.com/Spitinthesoup/status/620925772614770689

Videos back up on Vimeo and Dailymotion

Use SaveDeo to download.

 

[vedrafjord]

I started watching the video late last night, paused it about halfway through, came back in the morning and it was gone I guess save the video is the moral of the story. Now onto the actual talking points:

• The heart rate: we don't know how it was measured or what kind of averaging or smoothing the device performs on it
• Veracity: what do the people who said it was fake think now that Sky haven't said it was fake?
• About the source: we don't know what the source is full stop so it's stupid to say it's definitely stolen and anyone who makes any conclusions based on it automatically has no credibility. Either way, it's in the public domain now and it's ridiculous to pretend it's not. It's just watts, not nude pics.
• When Sky gave l'Equipe two years of Froome's data in 2013, did they include his data in the Tour to date? I.e. did they give l'Equipe the Ventoux file? That seems at least as likely a source as a Sky insider.
• The Brailsford view is pretty infuriating as it basically writes off the entire history of science by saying if something doesn't have 100% perfect predictive power it's complete junk and can be ignored. So take the oval chainrings and the statement that they give different numbers to regular chainrings. That's meaningless on its own - how much difference? 50%? 5%? 0.5%? If the oval chainring power numbers were junk there'd be no point in Sky collecting and then carefully guarding them.
• The fact that the overall watts figure matched the predicted watts figures is a data point that shows the power of those predictions. It's not the only one - ammattipyoraily regularly matches up predicted power figures with actual files from riders who choose to make their data public. If you want to dismiss the predictions, put in the work, show how they're wrong with actual numbers.

 

[King Boonen]

I think people are missing the really interesting thing here. It's not whether this data shows doping or not. It's that this data matches almost exactly the w/kg calculations of Vayer and Ferrari(?), even though Brailsford dismissed them as peseudo-scientific rubbish.

Now obviously both could be wrong, but those models weren't built on this data set, they were built on many other data sets as far as I'm aware. This data is more akin to a validation set and it has shown the models, in this case, to be almost perfect.

This is what the Sceptic is getting at, this data supports the analysis these guys are doing and that would be very troubling for anyone who is doping.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re: Re:

4. Suggesting this data is confirmation of the accuracy of a power estimate made from climbing speed is ignoring the quite possible bias error in both estimates due to unaccounted for errors. Two data wrongs don't make a right. I'd expect better from scientists.

Bias error from what? How much? This isn't a single data point: estimates have been compared with actual data from cyclists who voluntarily released their files before and have been within a % accuracy. Whereas you're saying the whole thing is junk based on what? Unknown factors of unknown magnitude? I hope I never get a reviewer like you on a paper.

If a scientist is knowingly using illegally or unethically obtained data, they have zero credibility IMO. I'd expect any credible scientist to distance themselves from those that obtain their data in this manner.

But you don't know how the data was obtained. So your view is by merely examining and commenting on the data you lose your credibility. Convenient.

 

[snccdcno]

Vayer says it was leaked to him from someone within the team.

 

[Miburo]

Re:

Vayer says it was leaked to him from someone within the team.

Wow so is sky really gonna collapse now already? I thought it was gonna take longer, let's see how the next days go

 

[WillemS]

Re:

Vayer says it was leaked to him from someone within the team.

That would be my bet, also. I think the course of events does not fit a hacking explanation. However, claiming to be "hacked" makes Sky the victim of a crime, instead of making it look like there's something going that would urge employees to leak stuff.

 

[thequestionmark]

Re:

Vayer says it was leaked to him from someone within the team.

Source?

On twitter Vayer refuses to disclose his source.

 

[meat puppet]

Re:

I think people are missing the really interesting thing here. It's not whether this data shows doping or not. It's that this data matches almost exactly the w/kg calculations of Vayer and Ferrari(?), even though Brailsford dismissed them as peseudo-scientific rubbish.

Now obviously both could be wrong, but those models weren't built on this data set, they were built on many other data sets as far as I'm aware. This data is more akin to a validation set and it has shown the models, in this case, to be almost perfect.

This is what the Sceptic is getting at, this data supports the analysis these guys are doing and that would be very troubling for anyone who is doping.

Good post. This indeed is the bigger picture. That estimated and measured values are this closely fit surprises me some. In retrospect, it should not be a huge surprise that they are in the same ballpark. After all my guess would be that Ferrari derived his Formula from a pile of actual power meter data and was looking för a good fit.

 

[BradCantona]

Re:

Given the pretty crummy analysis and ill informed commentary when data is made public, I'm not particularly surprised at people's decision to keep it private.

Confirmation bias is the order of the day.

This man has a point

I just want to enjoy the cycling. I'm delighted if flagrant cheats are caught and exposed, but this thread shows how little most people seem to truely understand how to interpret this data. This is just more tittle tattle it seems for those that just enjoy the sport of 'guess the doper'

I stand to be corrected if someone with said knowledge does step up to the plate!

 

[carton]

A couple notes (I didn't get a chance to watch the video but did see Vayer's graph):

1) As has been said before, the power data isn't a smoking gun. 5.8w/kg avg, above threshold efforts of almost 7 w/kg is what everyone expected.

2) On the flip side, the power data does seem enormously useful for competitors. As in, you need to try to withstand a x watt effort for y minutes to beat Froome, thereafter, his FTP does seem to go down a fair tick. That W balance analysis (not heard of it before), if legit, could be even more so.

3) A high max HR isn't a indication of athletic performance. A low HR is. The vuelta data would seem to confirm that. As I understand it a low max and resting HR would seemingly indicate a very enlarged heart. I imagine Froome's engine must look a bit like Secretariat's.

4) Even assuming a really low max HR, the whole HR set looks really wrong. I've don't remember seeing anything like it, and I'm a bit of a Strava-geek (not the getting KOMs kind, unfortunately). It also looks unlike the Vuelta data bar the fairly low average and max. It looks like a piece-wise function or a moving average of some sort. Sort of like an optical sensor, but even worse. In data analysis, shifty looking data is best ignored (maybe you conduct very basic analysis with caveats), unless you really need it, in which you usually revise the collection method.

5) What it does seem to confirm, whatever the 2% for chain-rings or 2% of head or crosswind would do, is that the implied power analyses conducted do not seem to be contradicted for Ventoux. On the other hand I don't think anyone serious thinks that they have it down to +/- 1W, Again, just one sample, but it does seem to support the position that implied power analysis isn't quite pseudo-science.
--
TL;DR: I'm really on the fence about the leak and discussing the numbers publicly. It does not seem to be any kind of smoking gun about doping, and so does not seem to serve the public interest. However, it would seem to benefit his competitors, and they can claim it's already public so it's fair game. On the flip side, is does provide a bit of a counterpoint to Brailsford's claim that implied power analysis is pseudo-science. Also, as Dombrowski said, that video hopefully does look to be the future of cycling broadcasting.

 

[snccdcno]

Re: Re:

Vayer says it was leaked to him from someone within the team.

Source?

On twitter Vayer refuses to disclose his source.

http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/sykkel/jeg-har-ikke-hacket-team-sky/a/23488674/