The Froome Files, test data only thread

[gillan1969]

The numbers released make total sense and I am sure are completely accurate.

Looking at 2007:
It would take a threshold north of 400 watts for a 75kg rider enter the Pro-tour ranks. Particularly if that rider has limited sprinting abilities. And a rider with a threshold of 420 watts at 75kg is not going to be riding at the front of any races at that level. 420 watts at 75kg is only 5.6 watts/kg, that is boarding on what the top women do.


Looking at present:
Again no surprise for August numbers. But keep in mind these are post tour numbers. If you know any thing about training and recovery you know that these numbers are probably a fair bit lower then what he was doing in beginning of July.

When I look at those results I think: July 1st, 2015: Threshold 435 watts, Weight 67kg. A cool 6.5 watts/kg.

you may want to explain that the Rasmussen M...funny how he's more confused on the subject than you...you know, having been there and done that?

 

[MTBrider]

Re: Re:

Fascinating stuff. So he clearly had the physiology to be a top rider in 2007 (as claimed by the UCI coach?), aside from carrying a stone too much pudding. His August test figures are remarkably consistent with the 2007 figures.
People are getting a little bogged down with a kilo here and there discrepancy between his self-reported weight at various times and the measured lab weights, which are solid. To be honest, most people's weight will vary up to a few kilos .... and most people are prone to mis-reporting their weight when asked off the cuff. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference.
What seems to me to be the most remarkable thing about his "numbers" is the combination of pretty high VO2max AND high efficiency (something Ross Tucker flagged up earlier this week).

So, what isn't surprising is that the one of best GT riders of his generation has the physiology and power output that one would expect to find. If he turns out to be the best ever then, again, these numbers would suggest nothing out of the ordinary.

The one thing that remains a mystery is not "why is he now so good?", it's "why was he so unfathomably bad?" prior to the 2011 Vuelta. Badzilla probably played some part but, as has been pointed out, there are so many versions of the timeline/narrative it's not trustworthy. Someone at SKY (Kerrison?) suggested that he could race in fits and starts, but had no clue how to use/manage the power that he had on tap in order to race properly.

Weight loss... well, that would certainly help, but it can't explain it all.

Discovering (thanks to his Badzilla Doctor) the wonders of Prednisolone (this was, I believe in the early part of 2011)? Well, he is still clearly partial to using it now, so maybe this has some bearing.

Motivation? Suddenly about to lose the SKY contract and the big future in the sport...because he was not cutting it? Possibly part of it too.

AICAR? Maybe... that would help with weight and metabolising fats during exertion.

Perhaps the reason he went from potentially great rider to great rider was a combination of several of those things. What we do know now, and what the rest of the peloton also now know, is that he is a bit of a freak.

These are all really good points. I would also like to know if there are other 'workout wonders' in the peloton that can pump out good numbers in a lab, but are unable to translate these watts into tangible results. That is common in sports requiring more elements of skill (NFL, MLB, NBA), but it seems inconceivable in a sport like cycling that is so driven by physiology. The numbers just don't have enough context.

In a test like this, I think it would be in Froome's best interest to soft pedal a bit, but only Froome would know if he went full gas or not.

I suspect there are tons with great lab number, nearly all them. But being able to do 6.0+ watts/kg in a lab, is vastly different from doing 6.0+ watts/kg at the end of a 5hr race.

People forget that road racing is about endurance, not top end power. It is what you can do at the end that matters.

TTing is a bit different, but having a high power output on a road bike does not mean you have a high power output on a TT bike. Any TT specialist will tell you it take a lot of work to learn to produce high power in a TT position.

 

[TailWindHome]

Ned Boulting ‏@nedboulting · 2h2 hours ago
Does @chrisfroome have special software fitted that knows when he's being tested? #emissions

 

[MTBrider]

The numbers released make total sense and I am sure are completely accurate.

Looking at 2007:
It would take a threshold north of 400 watts for a 75kg rider enter the Pro-tour ranks. Particularly if that rider has limited sprinting abilities. And a rider with a threshold of 420 watts at 75kg is not going to be riding at the front of any races at that level. 420 watts at 75kg is only 5.6 watts/kg, that is boarding on what the top women do.


Looking at present:
Again no surprise for August numbers. But keep in mind these are post tour numbers. If you know any thing about training and recovery you know that these numbers are probably a fair bit lower then what he was doing in beginning of July.

When I look at those results I think: July 1st, 2015: Threshold 435 watts, Weight 67kg. A cool 6.5 watts/kg.

you may want to explain that the Rasmussen M...funny how he's more confused on the subject than you...you know, having been there and done that?

420 watts is a lot power from a 58kg guy. Those are numbers that even pumped full of EPO he could only imagine hitting. Plus, he has an IQ well south of his weight so there is no surprise that he is confused.

 

[Chris James]

The lab run by Martial Saugy who told Armstrong and Bruyneel all about how the EPO tests work back in the noughties! yeah they're really going to be upset by that or whatever.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that the lab might have fabricated the results themselves in 2007 to inflate the results of a young Konica Minolta rider for reasons best known to themselves.

Or are you suggesting that the WADA accredited lab in Lausanne would be happy for Michelle Froome to falsify their reports?

Neither sounds very likely to me.

 

[Chris James]

That is a very good question. Could you explain it? Why he didn't perform with 'those numbers'?

It isn't up to me to explain anything, I'm not Chris Froome's mum. I'm just saying that there appears to be independent lab testing to show that he was able to put out those numbers in 2007.

Well it is up to you to enter into a debate. Otherwise there's not much point you being in this thread. Most are here to discuss the data in relation to his performances. If that troubles you then you might be in the wrong thread.

My point is that YOU aren't discussing the data. You have just decided the data doesn't exists because you don't believe it.

Data isn't making up implausible reasons for why you might have been right all along.

 

[thehog]

That is a very good question. Could you explain it? Why he didn't perform with 'those numbers'?

It isn't up to me to explain anything, I'm not Chris Froome's mum. I'm just saying that there appears to be independent lab testing to show that he was able to put out those numbers in 2007.

Well it is up to you to enter into a debate. Otherwise there's not much point you being in this thread. Most are here to discuss the data in relation to his performances. If that troubles you then you might be in the wrong thread.

My point is that YOU aren't discussing the data. You have just decided the data doesn't exists because you don't believe it.

Data isn't making up implausible reasons for why you might have been right all along.

To the contrary. I'm discussing that the data from 2007 didn't correlate to his race performances at the time.

That's the part you appear to be avoiding. Sure that data matches up today, but there's this troubling period from 2007 to 2011. And then in 3 weeks he found those missing watts.

There is lab data and race data. If you wish to discuss please do, otherwise....

 

[Benotti69]

The lab run by Martial Saugy who told Armstrong and Bruyneel all about how the EPO tests work back in the noughties! yeah they're really going to be upset by that or whatever.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that the lab might have fabricated the results themselves in 2007 to inflate the results of a young Konica Minolta rider for reasons best known to themselves.

Or are you suggesting that the WADA accredited lab in Lausanne would be happy for Michelle Froome to falsify their reports?

Neither sounds very likely to me.

Why? Corruption in sport is rife from the presidents of international sporting federations down to masseuses.

Not been reading the news lately.......

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

But the lab test of 2007 says that he did have 'those numbers' - so how do you explain that?

I will break my boycott of this pitifully moderated place to tell a story about the man whose name is on those numbers, Dr. Zorzoli. Read it before the moderators delete it, as they keep threatening to put the kibosh on everything that does not meet their approval.

In the early 00's the UCI changed its indirect EPO detection from a simple measurement of hematocrit to a more sophisticated method that used reticulocytes as well as hematocrit. Dr. Zorzoli gave presentations to teams to explain how the new testing worked. At U.S. Postal's presentation he displayed a graph that showed the team's riders blood values from previous tests and how those blood values would fare under the new testing. There were no names attached to graph, but the names were available upon request to the team's doctors and management. The purpose of Zorzoli's presentation was to give riders a heads up about how blood values needed to be manipulated to be kept within acceptable limits.

Helping riders dope and not get caught was part of Zorzoli's job. Why would anyone trust numbers from this guy?

 

[gillan1969]

But the lab test of 2007 says that he did have 'those numbers' - so how do you explain that?

I will break my boycott of this pitifully moderated place to tell a story about the man whose name is on those numbers, Dr. Zorzoli. Read it before the moderators delete it, as they keep threatening to put the kibosh on everything that does not meet their approval.

In the early 00's the UCI changed its indirect EPO detection from a simple measurement of hematocrit to a more sophisticated method that used reticulocytes as well as hematocrit. Dr. Zorzoli gave presentations to teams to explain how the new testing worked. At U.S. Postal's presentation he displayed a graph that showed the team's riders blood values from previous tests and how those blood values would fare under the new testing. There were no names attached to graph, but the names were available upon request to the team's doctors and management. The purpose of Zorzoli's presentation was to give riders a heads up about how blood values needed to be manipulated to be kept within acceptable limits.

Helping riders dope and not get caught was part of Zorzoli's job. Why would anyone trust numbers from this guy?

...and he signed off froomes TUE unilaterlally...he's the 'go-to' guy...I'm very surprised the data resided with him in 2007...what is his job title?

 

[danielovichdk2]

Re:

The whole thing stinks. Anyone with a 420 Watt FTP would have been identified very early - as in their teens. Several teams would have fought for him. The only question at that age would have been whether he could adapt to the longer mileage in pro races and recover well enough in 1-week and 3-week races. This is what has happened for every talent since forever. Some can adapt to the loads (win one day events) and some can recover well enough to win GTs. Everyone else with that kind of talent flames out and finds their niche (TT, prologue, polka dot jersey, super-domestique, etc).

It's only guys with middling numbers that do nothing while on Barloworld and then nearly get dropped from their first World Tour team after time as an okay domestique.

John Swanson

Depending on the length. 20min, 40min or 60min.

20 min in 420 is doable. For 60 min, it's unnatural.

 

[Merckx index]

It suggests in the article that his fractional VO2 utilization is 80% rather than 90% - meaning a higher efficiency?

I didn't see that value in the article.

It says his sustainable power of 6W/kg is 79.8% of his peak power output. That's a completely different ratio.

It’s technically not the same thing, but they shouldn’t be too different. As you know, peak power and V02 max are determined at the same point in the ramp test, and so are sustained (FT) power and sustained (utilized) V02. So any differences between FTP/peak power and fractional utilization will simply reflect differences in the relationship of V02 to power in the portion of the test from sustained (defined in the Froome study as 4 mM lactate) and peak (where cadence drops below 70 rpm).

Coggan’s tables show a ratio of about 86%-87% for FTP/5 minute power in elite cyclists. The latter is not the power at V02max, but it’s probably pretty close. Coggan suggests that a cyclist can probably put out a little more than V02max for this period of time, so if anything, FTP/5 minute power should overestimate fractional utilization. In any case, we can see from the study that Froome does not fit Coggan’s tables very well. His FTP/5 minute ratio must be considerably lower than 86-87%.

Having a fractional VO2max utilisation of 80% for mean maximal power in the 20-40-min range indicates being under trained for a rider of this calibre. Heck it's likely to represent being under trained for me. At peak fitness as a masters aged (45) paracycling C4 rider (transtibial amputation) my fractional VO2max utilisation for 30-minutes was ~88%.

I know you and Coggan preach this, but Coyle reported that LA’s lactate threshold was reached at 75-85% V02max, which is a pretty good indication of utilization. I’ve also just pointed out that Froome’s FTP/peak power is apparently quite a bit lower than what Coggan seems to believe is typical for elite racers.

You and Andy know more about this stuff than I do, but I’m not seeing anything close to 90% utilization in these data, which implies a very high efficiency.

 

[MatParker1711]

Re:

Michael Rasmussen@MRasmussen1974 2h

1)I just don't understand why he didn't crush everybody in the ITT in 2007 if the watts where higher than 2015?

all this data and still more unanswered questions!

Shitty equipment and probably piss poor positioning, cadence & gearing.

 

[armchairclimber]

Personally, as the test data from 2007 has been talked about long ago, I don't disbelieve it. It is also consistent with the new data.

The question is, as I said earlier, and as Hog is asking, why was he so ordinary on a bike back in 2007? Why wasn't he translating that potential? It might not even be a clinic answer...but it's a big and frickin obvious question.
I don't buy John Swanson's assertion that the 2007 data is baloney... there is just something else there. None of us know what it is yet....and there ain't too much point going over the x,000 posts in the Froome thread again.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen@MRasmussen1974 2h

1)I just don't understand why he didn't crush everybody in the ITT in 2007 if the watts where higher than 2015?

all this data and still more unanswered questions!

Shitty equipment and probably piss poor positioning, cadence & gearing.

Of course. Only some pros get top equipment the rest have to ride shite and in 2007 it was all so backward with huge differences in the equipment. Poor guy had to ride a Bianchi FFS! It is amazing Froome learned to ride a bike at all. I mean when he became a pro it took years to learn about positioning, cadence & gearing. I mean team mates, coaches, managers all must have thought Froome a lost cause and not bothered to teach him. Luckily Michelle Cound saw the true GT great that he is!

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen@MRasmussen1974 2h

1)I just don't understand why he didn't crush everybody in the ITT in 2007 if the watts where higher than 2015?

all this data and still more unanswered questions!

Shitty equipment and probably piss poor positioning, cadence & gearing.

And how did his positioning improve. It's not like he went into a wind tunnel. Froome himself admits he didn't until 2013. Yet he won the Olympic bronze in 2012. Something doesn't add up.

As for poor equipment, Hog can post the 2007 picture again if you like. Nothing shitty about that equipment at all.

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

TTing is a bit different, but having a high power output on a road bike does not mean you have a high power output on a TT bike. Any TT specialist will tell you it take a lot of work to learn to produce high power in a TT position.

Exactly. (OT: I simply hate my power meter/TT bike combo )

 

[thehog]

Re:

Personally, as the test data from 2007 has been talked about long ago, I don't disbelieve it. It is also consistent with the new data.

The question is, as I said earlier, and as Hog is asking, why was he so ordinary on a bike back in 2007? Why wasn't he translating that potential? It might not even be a clinic answer...but it's a big and frickin obvious question.
I don't buy John Swanson's assertion that the 2007 data is baloney... there is just something else there. None of us know what it is yet....and there ain't too much point going over the x,000 posts in the Froome thread again.

Either the data is baloney (as the medical sheet has been highlighted) or Froome is the biggest anomaly known to man kind. Basically Clark Kent and didn't know his own strength as a 22 year old and was afraid to use it in races.

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back, not one minute or 90 seconds accounting for poor position, 5 minutes in 40km! In fact every time he went near a TT same situation. He raced in many shorter races, early career where this power could have been transferred to good placing's, never happened, not even a little bit.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Personally, as the test data from 2007 has been talked about long ago, I don't disbelieve it. It is also consistent with the new data.

The question is, as I said earlier, and as Hog is asking, why was he so ordinary on a bike back in 2007? Why wasn't he translating that potential? It might not even be a clinic answer...but it's a big and frickin obvious question.
I don't buy John Swanson's assertion that the 2007 data is baloney... there is just something else there. None of us know what it is yet....and there ain't too much point going over the x,000 posts in the Froome thread again.

Either the data is baloney (as the medical sheet has been highlighted) or Froome is the biggest anomaly known to man kind. Basically Clark Kent and didn't know his own strength as a 22 year old and was afraid to use it in races.

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back, not one minute or 90 seconds accounting for poor position, 5 minutes in 40km! In fact every time he went near a TT same situation. He raced in many shorter races, early career where this power could have been transferred to good placing's, never happened, not even a little bit.

I'd be more inclined to go with "baloney 2007" data if it hadn't already been talked about by the UCI coach (can't recall his name) some time back, and long before the August test was planned. Didn't he compare his data to Hinault's ... my memory is a bit hazy on this.


Anyway, you have one of two scenarios.... he was crap back then and had crap numbers, which have since been re-invented. In which case you have to explain how he has suddenly acquired a freakish combination of high VO2 max and efficiency north of 25%. I'm not even sure there's dope on the market that can achieve that.

Or he had the numbers back then, which are consistent with those now. In which case the conundrum is "why was he so mediocre?".

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Everyone accepts now that he was never a donkey?

That's the problem. The 2007 data set from his testing is strong. However he never displayed this type of power anywhere ever in period. Why is that? Why did it only appear once for this test?

Regardless of weight he should have been winning the 2006 Commenwealth Games TT amongst other TTs with this output.

Something is not right here, it's even more mysterious.

He went on altitude training - read pumped up his blood - before, that could/should up the numbers pretty good wouldnt it?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Personally, as the test data from 2007 has been talked about long ago, I don't disbelieve it. It is also consistent with the new data.

The question is, as I said earlier, and as Hog is asking, why was he so ordinary on a bike back in 2007? Why wasn't he translating that potential? It might not even be a clinic answer...but it's a big and frickin obvious question.
I don't buy John Swanson's assertion that the 2007 data is baloney... there is just something else there. None of us know what it is yet....and there ain't too much point going over the x,000 posts in the Froome thread again.

Either the data is baloney (as the medical sheet has been highlighted) or Froome is the biggest anomaly known to man kind. Basically Clark Kent and didn't know his own strength as a 22 year old and was afraid to use it in races.

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back, not one minute or 90 seconds accounting for poor position, 5 minutes in 40km! In fact every time he went near a TT same situation. He raced in many shorter races, early career where this power could have been transferred to good placing's, never happened, not even a little bit.

I'd be more inclined to go with "baloney 2007" data if it hadn't already been talked about by the UCI coach (can't recall his name) some time back, and long before the August test was planned. Didn't he compare his data to Hinault's ... my memory is a bit hazy on this.


Anyway, you have one of two scenarios.... he was crap back then and had crap numbers, which have since been re-invented. In which case you have to explain how he has suddenly acquired a freakish combination of high VO2 max and efficiency north of 25%. I'm not even sure there's dope on the market that can achieve that.

Or he had the numbers back then, which are consistent with those now. In which case the conundrum is "why was he so mediocre?".

I'm speculating but the 2007 look like the type of numbers you would make up to explain the engine. Very high, in fact the same as they are in 2015 but carrying a lot of weight.

The guy has made zero physiological progression in 8 years of racing and training. He just lost weight. The weight loss was "progressive" but the performances were not "progressive", it was sudden in 3 weeks.

Zero explanation for that.

 

[LeindersGains]

Re: Re:

How long is his "Peak Power Output" supposed to be? 1-2 min?

5

Uh no. It's 30 seconds.

Must Be 5 minutes. Even I can hold 550w for a minute.

It has to be 5 minutes. Or at least 3-4 mins. When he made his attack in the leaked video, it was with 600-700 watts for about minute.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

It suggests in the article that his fractional VO2 utilization is 80% rather than 90% - meaning a higher efficiency?

I didn't see that value in the article.

It says his sustainable power of 6W/kg is 79.8% of his peak power output. That's a completely different ratio.

It’s technically not the same thing, but they shouldn’t be too different. As you know, peak power and V02 max are determined at the same point in the ramp test, and so are sustained (FT) power and sustained (utilized) V02. So any differences between FTP/peak power and fractional utilization will simply reflect differences in the relationship of V02 to power in the portion of the test from sustained (defined in the Froome study as 4 mM lactate) and peak (where cadence drops below 70 rpm).

Coggan’s tables show a ratio of about 86%-87% for FTP/5 minute power in elite cyclists. The latter is not the power at V02max, but it’s probably pretty close. Coggan suggests that a cyclist can probably put out a little more than V02max for this period of time, so if anything, FTP/5 minute power should overestimate fractional utilization. In any case, we can see from the study that Froome does not fit Coggan’s tables very well. His FTP/5 minute ratio must be considerably lower than 86-87%.

Having a fractional VO2max utilisation of 80% for mean maximal power in the 20-40-min range indicates being under trained for a rider of this calibre. Heck it's likely to represent being under trained for me. At peak fitness as a masters aged (45) paracycling C4 rider (transtibial amputation) my fractional VO2max utilisation for 30-minutes was ~88%.

I know you and Coggan preach this, but Coyle reported that LA’s lactate threshold was reached at 75-85% V02max, which is a pretty good indication of utilization. I’ve also just pointed out that Froome’s FTP/peak power is apparently quite a bit lower than what Coggan seems to believe is typical for elite racers.

You and Andy know more about this stuff than I do, but I’m not seeing anything close to 90% utilization in these data, which implies a very high efficiency.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed, on several counts:

1) power at VO2max and power at the end of a VO2max test are not the same thing, with the latter being significantly higher than the former. As a result, comparing the ratios of power outputs at OBLA and at the end of the VO2max test will significantly understimate the fraction of VO2max required/sustained.

2) the power profiling tables were constructed using an "anchor point" approach, with the data forming the top anchor of each column coming from different individuals. You therefore can't really interpret them as you have.

3) Coyle's definition of lactate threshold is significantly below the exercise intensity that can be maintained during a typical TT.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

The guy has made zero physiological progression in 8 years of racing and training. He just lost weight.

That conclusion cannot be draw from the data that has been made available, since the 2007 testing apparently did not include evaluation of either his lactate threshold or his efficiency, only measurement of his VO2max.

(Indeed, even these 2015 data do not include measurement of his efficiency, which I find a bit puzzling. They also screwed up calculation of his threshold using the Dmax and modified Dmax methods, but that's another story.)

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

How long is his "Peak Power Output" supposed to be? 1-2 min?

5

Uh no. It's 30 seconds.

Must Be 5 minutes. Even I can hold 550w for a minute.

It has to be 5 minutes. Or at least 3-4 mins. When he made his attack in the leaked video, it was with 600-700 watts for about minute.

As DearWiggo stated, it's the highest power achieved for 30 s at the end of the test, before cadence dropped below 70 rpm.

Because of the fatiguing nature of the preceding exercise, it really tells you very little about what someone might be able to do when fresh, or in a race situation.