Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[acoggan]

The Sports Science guys covered this fairly well:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped.html

Decades Dave, not years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationism

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Saying it's not the only variable is not the same as ignoring it.

As for my peril?

You are taking this far too seriously.

Hardly, just a turn of phrase. This is just a virtual pub after all. But people in pubs can still learn stuff.

 

[DarkWarrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationism

I would wager that his ABP would confirm his mutation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I would wager that his ABP would confirm his mutation.

Blizharia boy? Yeah I am sure his BP is mutated.

 

[Sasquatch]

What were the figures for Froome and Porte, and what is their comparison to Armstrong or other convicted cheats?

 

[Sasquatch]

Well Froom's 23:14 was certainly very impressive up Ax 3 Domaines but the gaps for me were what really were amazing.

1) Froome: 6.5 w/kg
2) Porte : 6.15
3) Valverde: 6.1
4) Mollema: 6.1
5) Ten Dam: 6.0
6) Ituralde: 5.9
7) Contador: 5.85

Rodriguez: 5.75

Evans: 5.35
Teejay: 4.6

Ignore my post above

That's what I was after.

jesus!

 

[Boeing]

I would wager that his ABP would confirm his mutation.

I always wandered about his crab like digits and those shoulders no wider than his neck

 

[TubularBills]

Ignore my post above

That's what I was after.

jesus!

Six Million Dollar Man?

 

[armchairclimber]

From ACoggan's FB page.

http://blog.aeroweenie.com/2013/07/wattskg-tour-de-france-math.html?spref=fb

"Stick to the stopwatch" is the message.

 

[Ferminal]

Well said Andy, agreed.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well said Andy, agreed.

The blog post is not Andy's.

 

[EnacheV]

Ok look at Froome's climbing times on mountain stages and ITT's pre-Vuelta 2011 and compare them from then to now.

god forbids someone improves or decays because of to much club nights for example.

all these numbers means nothing regarding the causes of performances, also if something is posted on a site that has sport and science in his domain name it doesn't mean that is science

 

[acoggan]

I would wager that his ABP would confirm his mutation.

ABP = Athlete Biological Passport?

Anyway, the analogy I was attempting to draw in bringing up evolution is that while genetic alterations may progress at a certain rate on average, that does not mean that such changes are gradual. I could have just as well pointed to the effects of aging; while population data will demonstrate a smooth decline in physiological function, for a given individual such reductions tend to be far less so. By extension, the fact that athletic performances have improved by X% on average over a particular period in time in no way precludes a given individual from exceeding that rate of change (via whatever mechanism).

 

[acoggan]

The blog post is not Andy's.

Right - I would have done a proper propogation-of-error analysis. Jack does have the right idea, though.

 

[Parrot23]

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/06/stages-review-update.html

Andy (vis below),

Not directed at you; just kind of funny.

To stress the point that one is going to get different watt values between different PM's (even dozens of watts in cases), let alone the much bigger problems with estimation on this thread. Not a problem, as long as the the one unit is calibrated and gives internally consistent values for that unit/rider/bike set-up.

Akin to the point about comparing riders on one day (re similar wind conditions, etc.), not between days (especially as previous Tour climbs on the same hill, e.g. Armstrong's, were preceded by vastly different days, e.g., a timetrial, etc.)

Context matters a lot: why lab conditions are so controlled.

Wide variation even between PM's.

 

[acoggan]

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/06/stages-review-update.html

1. Simultaneously comparing multiple powermeters is hardly anything new (although the most I've ever had on my bike at one time was four, i.e., PowerTap, SRM, Ergomo, iBike).

2. What does this have to do the topic at hand?

3. Ray is clearly on a frame that is too low/long for him.

 

[Turner29]

ABP = Athlete Biological Passport?

Anyway, the analogy I was attempting to draw in bringing up evolution is that while genetic alterations may progress at a certain rate on average, that does not mean that such changes are gradual. I could have just as well pointed to the effects of aging; while population data will demonstrate a smooth decline in physiological function, for a given individual such reductions tend to be far less so. By extension, the fact that athletic performances have improved by X% on average over a particular period in time in no way precludes a given individual from exceeding that rate of change (via whatever mechanism).

That is where I thought you were going. The combination of exponential population growth, exponential wealth growth (for some) and exponential communication growth should increase the likelihood of such outliers.

Exponential population growth provides a larger pool of genetic mutations. For example, the world's population increased one billion from 1950 to 1970 and three billion from 1970 to now. Thus 3x more possible genetic mutations.

Exponential wealth growth, when concentrated in the hands of sponsors, allows much more money to spent finding and training athletes. In addition, the lure of wealth draws more to sports and there is now the possibility for many to make a good living without being a dominant champion.

Exponential communication growth means that uncovering outliers is far easier today than in the past.

Couple the above with "modern" training methods and technology and in theory outlier elite performance records should be more common. Much more common.

But are they? In addition, should there not then be a step-function like pattern to sports records? For example, an athlete sets a record that holds for some time, or only marginal advancement occurs, then in the next "generation" a new record is set greatly exceeding previous marginal increases.

Interestingly, Cycling's Hour record somewhat follows a step function (and at one point an inverse one) but too many factors are present (altitude, doping, equipment, training) to draw conclusions regarding actual physiological advances due to a genetic outlier.

 

[Turner29]

To add some levity to the discussion, due to the explosion of available pharmaceuticals, quite possibly an athlete might accidentally take medication with unknown or unintended performance enhancing consequences, thus appearing as an outlier.

I will use Marco Pantani as an example. And Minoxidil:

Topical minoxidil: cardiac effects in bald man.

Abstract
Systemic cardiovascular effects during chronic treatment with topical minoxidil vs placebo were evaluated using a double-blind, randomized design for two parallel groups (n = 20 for minoxidil, n = 15 for placebo). During 6 months of follow-up, blood pressure did not change, whereas minoxidil increased heart rate by 3-5 beats min-1. Compared with placebo, topical minoxidil caused significant increases in LV end-diastolic volume, in cardiac output (by 0.751 min-1) and in LV mass (by 5 g m-2). We conclude that in healthy subjects short-term use of topical minoxidil is likely not to be detrimental. However, safety needs to be established regarding ischaemic symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease as well as for the possible development of LV hypertrophy in healthy subjects during years of therapy.

The above indicates a nearly 15% increase in Cardiac Output due to topical Minoxidil. Could Il Pirata's performance outliers simply have come from something that he was applying to his balding head?

Before anyone jumps on me for this post, there is a method to my madness...

 

[BigBoat]

Let's say, for sake of argument, that we knew definitively that Froome's power during TTs is, say, 6.1 W/kg, and that he produces a bit more than that while climbing (for shorter durations). Does that prove that he is doping, or not?

For me (in my mind), it would. Could we "prove it!" Hell no, we cant prove it. Power numbers mean zero to most authorities responsible for the sport. The man who wrote the "reasoned decision" on USPO showed a slight amount of interest in it.

Those (like Lemond) who want to use power to "see" doping, you would have to look at variations over time, we would have to see every single all out effort Froome has done over the course of his career to get the full picture. I bet his power when he rode his first TDF was a joke compared to what it is now!

 

[acoggan]

That is where I thought you were going. The combination of exponential population growth, exponential wealth growth (for some) and exponential communication growth should increase the likelihood of such outliers.

Exponential population growth provides a larger pool of genetic mutations. For example, the world's population increased one billion from 1950 to 1970 and three billion from 1970 to now. Thus 3x more possible genetic mutations.

Exponential wealth growth, when concentrated in the hands of sponsors, allows much more money to spent finding and training athletes. In addition, the lure of wealth draws more to sports and there is now the possibility for many to make a good living without being a dominant champion.

Exponential communication growth means that uncovering outliers is far easier today than in the past.

Couple the above with "modern" training methods and technology and in theory outlier elite performance records should be more common. Much more common.

But are they? In addition, should there not then be a step-function like pattern to sports records? For example, an athlete sets a record that holds for some time, or only marginal advancement occurs, then in the next "generation" a new record is set greatly exceeding previous marginal increases.

Interestingly, Cycling's Hour record somewhat follows a step function (and at one point an inverse one) but too many factors are present (altitude, doping, equipment, training) to draw conclusions regarding actual physiological advances due to a genetic outlier.

I was thinking only in terms of how athletic records progress in fits-and-starts, not proposing any overall acceleration or specific mechanism (e.g., evolution). Your hypothesis is interesting, however...I wonder, for example, if there is any overall trend in how long a particular record lasts in say, swimming?

 

[acoggan]

For me (in my mind), it would.

Okay, how 'bout 6.0? 5.9? Where do you draw the "doping line", and what is your physiological/scientific rationale for where you draw it?

 

[Pulpstar]

Perhaps make stuff like this mandatory ?

Calling team sky !

Rotor launches QXL rings and POWER meter
By: Ben Delaney
Do you like this?
The new Rotor QXL rings feature a 15 percent ovalization
PreviousNext

view thumbnail gallery
Power meter features right/left crank measurement

This article originally published on BikeRadar

Perhaps best known for its ovalized Q-Rings (US$290/£145/€209), Rotor has upped the ante with the QXL chain rings (US$320/£185/€215), which are even more elliptical. The company has also has begun shipping its Rotor POWER meter (US$2,350/£1,450 without chain rings), which mounts on both cranks and thereby claims to offer true right/left power measurement, plus new torque and efficiency data.

Power data to be black boxed and analysed post-race.

Or live feed !

 

[acoggan]

To add some levity to the discussion, due to the explosion of available pharmaceuticals, quite possibly an athlete might accidentally take medication with unknown or unintended performance enhancing consequences, thus appearing as an outlier.

I will use Marco Pantani as an example. And Minoxidil:

Topical minoxidil: cardiac effects in bald man.

Abstract
Systemic cardiovascular effects during chronic treatment with topical minoxidil vs placebo were evaluated using a double-blind, randomized design for two parallel groups (n = 20 for minoxidil, n = 15 for placebo). During 6 months of follow-up, blood pressure did not change, whereas minoxidil increased heart rate by 3-5 beats min-1. Compared with placebo, topical minoxidil caused significant increases in LV end-diastolic volume, in cardiac output (by 0.751 min-1) and in LV mass (by 5 g m-2). We conclude that in healthy subjects short-term use of topical minoxidil is likely not to be detrimental. However, safety needs to be established regarding ischaemic symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease as well as for the possible development of LV hypertrophy in healthy subjects during years of therapy.

The above indicates a nearly 15% increase in Cardiac Output due to topical Minoxidil. Could Il Pirata's performance outliers simply have come from something that he was applying to his balding head?

Before anyone jumps on me for this post, there is a method to my madness...

Not jumping, but changes in resting cardiac dimensions/mass aren't very predictive of how the heart functions during exercise.

 

[Turner29]

Not jumping, but changes in resting cardiac dimensions/mass aren't very predictive of how the heart functions during exercise.

Having had mitral valve repair surgery, I know that very well... My last ejection fraction measurement was only 39%, yet when riding I can still hold my own against the hammer-heads...

 

[Turner29]

Not jumping, but changes in resting cardiac dimensions/mass aren't very predictive of how the heart functions during exercise.

But what about the 15% increase in Cardiac Output? Should that not have essentially the same effect as blood vector doping?