The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Your'e assuming he was always outright team leader, in a team capable of winning races, in every race he entered though and with the mindset and confidence of someone who knows he has a chance to win, which is what it's all about. I would argue until 2012, Froome never rode as a team leader whatsoever. Unless he races some one-day races now, you can't even look at results in Worlds or Nationals.
My point is, the difference in the performance of a super-domestique and even general-domestique who can climb, is not as big as the gap between themselves and the GC leaders they were riding for is when looking at final GC
Just look at Thomas this year, or Suitsu in either Barloworld or Sky for suggestion, that you can nearly be as good as the GC guys as a domestique, but looking at palamares will never indicate such performance similarities. Explaining it away with weight loss is only part of the picture.

Your argument falls down because Brailsford would not leave any stone unturned in his quest to get the maximum out of his riders. Why did Michelle Cound claim she took over Froome's diet? Why are we now hearing it was weight loss that held Froome back and not the blood disease, Bilharzia or his asthma?

Sorry this test is not answering anything. We have seen similar charades with Armstrong.

If weight loss is the key to riders performance why only Froome at Sky? Why not EBH? Why only Thomas this year? Why not 2 years ago?

Sorry, Sky did not see Froome's big engine or potential because if they did he would have been put forward for team leader in smaller races to see his engine perform. They didn't, he was a dom and not even a great one for Sky hence they tried to get rid of him. If Froome had this great engine we would have seen a Stannard type of performance from him at races. We didn't.

Part of that is easy to explain, Froome is an outsider in terms of the Brits on Sky's team. The rest have come from track backgrounds mainly with BC. They've even said Wiggins and a few others were the priority in terms of being GC contended so they weren't going to be looking at Froome in that context. Plus in the first few years Sky were a joke of a team. Add in the fact that he himself was clueless at making the most of his talents and tactics wise and you wouldn't expect him to be performing at the highest GC level even if he did possess the physiological capability. Anyway the data from 2007 puts a big hole in one of the clinics favourite theories that he never the physiological attributes to ride as a GC contender.

Yeah but the UCI who have these test results that a young Froome is the new Hinault would be telling teams, check out this guy, his numbers are huge......never happened.

As Rollthedice says, it doesn't add up, 2 world tour teams have the next Hinault and could not see it. Then BOOM in a 2 week period he goes from Grupetto to Podium contender.

The cluelessness and tatics were fixed in that 2 week period? Really?

Sky were a joke of a team? Sir Dave Brailsford the 'master of details', the guy who brought TEAMGB so much success on track was a joke? Before they hired Leinders, Yates, De Jongh, Jullich, Knavens etc etc...

Still all points to doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Can someone who believes that Froome had 17% body fat please post a picture to illustrate this?

Because at Barloworld he looks a normal thin pro in the pictures.

At Sky he looks like a Belsen camp prisoner.

 

[Irondan]

Please keep comments impersonal and on the topic.

This thread is about the new data report issued by Chris Froome.

Please take general discussion about Froome and Sky to the appropriate threads.

I'm not talking to anyone in particular, this is just a friendly reminder.

 

[thehog]

Though Grappe says the testing was a good step, he told Cyclingnews that the process was insufficient; that there were numerous aspects that could have been measured or published but weren’t; and that the results mean little without the context of a longitudinal system of evaluation.

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

“What is surprising is that they didn’t give us the maximum heart rate – it’s not there, they didn’t give the result. I don’t know why. Similarly, they didn’t give the lactate threshold. Explosiveness, the same; there are no explosiveness values – efforts of a few seconds. That would have been interesting to see

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froomes-physiological-testing-insufficient-says-grappe/

“And surprisingly, we don’t have a value for gross efficiency. That I find very surprising. It’s the relationship between power and oxygen consumption. If he is 21% or 23% efficient, it’s not the same. That impacts upon the level of effort on climbs; you don’t produce the same number of watts with 23% efficiency as with 21%. But they haven’t given those values.

“It’s not a complete picture,” Grappe concludes. “It shows that he has a very high VO2max – up there with the highest in athletes – but on the other hand we don’t know his power profile, that’s what’s missing. It's not sufficient as a guage of anti-doping. Many riders can have that profile, but it is necessary to go further in the evaluation."

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

As Rollthedice says, it doesn't add up, 2 world tour teams have the next Hinault and could not see it. Then BOOM in a 2 week period he goes from Grupetto to Podium contender.

The cluelessness and tatics were fixed in that 2 week period? Really?

Actually, I have learned from the clinic that he found a wonder drug which turned his physiology completely and permanently in one night and therefore he has been the best for four years (so far).

 

[harryh]

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

Yes there are. It means that Froome can win a couple of TdF more but Pinot can't win a single one

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

What's the formula? I thought Froome had an efficiency of slightly under 23%?

It's in my blog post linked in the one I did about Froome's just released data:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/looking-under-froomes-hood.html
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/looking-under-hood.html

Sustainable Power Output = Energy per litre O2 (J) x VO2max (ml/kg/min) x Fractional VO2max at threshold (%) x GME (%) / 60 (seconds/minute) / 1000 (ml/litre)

What energy per litre of O2 you release can vary a bit as well depending on fuel substrate mix (fats and glycogen), but if we confine ourselves to glycogen fuelled aerobic effort, then I use 20,900 J/l.

If talking about very long duration power, then one would probably need to change the energy yield value accordingly.

It get's a bit trickier when talking about short duration sustainable power, as non-aerobic energy pathways starts to play a greater role in energy supply (e.g. 5-minute mean maximal power is ~20-25% anaerobic). So use the above for at minimum 20-minutes, and keep in mind there can still be non-insignificant anaerobic contribution at that duration. 40+ minutes is a safer bet.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

Yes there are. It means that Froome can win a couple of TdF more but Pinot can't

Indeed, those nasty jealous French.

i agree with u totally Harry.

 

[harryh]

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

Yes there are. It means that Froome can win a couple of TdF more but Pinot can't

Indeed, those nasty jealous French.

i agree with u totally Harry.

Sorry I forgot that winning TdF is not that important for Frenchman

 

[ScienceIsCool]

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.

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

Potential for what? Are you really saying that if Svein Tuft started winning GT's that you would have expected it because of the potential he's shown? Really?

John Swanson

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

"
Are you misreading 14th as 4th?

Because just to make it clear, Froome finished 14th.

Nothing special for a 23 year old, nothing special at all. Keep digging through his results list though. Maybe something will stick."

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. I did say you would say he should have finished first or near the very top even as first year pro.

And why not. Froome is a 2 time Tour de France champion. He's not some guy who cracks the top 10 every now and again, he's the dominant cyclist of his era and physiologically the greatest of all time.

And we shouldn't expect him to finish near the top as a first year pro?

Andy in his first year as a pro finished 2nd in the Giro (at 21 years old). Froome is way better than Andy ever was. Nairo was the 3rd best climber in the race in his first gt as a pro and finished 2nd in his 2nd (as a 22 and then 23 year old). Valverde podiumed a gt and a worlds. Sagan was winning races in his first year (at 19).

These are all people 2 or 3 levels below Froome in the "talent" stakes.

But Froome was really rocking that potential by finishing top 20 in one stage out of 21

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

As Rollthedice says, it doesn't add up, 2 world tour teams have the next Hinault and could not see it. Then BOOM in a 2 week period he goes from Grupetto to Podium contender.

The cluelessness and tatics were fixed in that 2 week period? Really?

Actually, I have learned from the clinic that he found a wonder drug which turned his physiology completely and permanently in one night and therefore he has been the best for four years (so far).

Keep reading, you'll find out that sporting federations are corrupt and testing labs help teams beat the tests too boot!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

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

5

Uh no. It's 30 seconds.

It depends on how we interpret the question.

Yes, the PPO in this test was the maximal 30-second average power before cadence dropped below 70rpm.

But if the question is how long could someone sustain that power level for when out riding and not having massively pre-fatigued in an incremental test to exhaustion, then that's quite variable. I'm not so sure I'd be saying 5-minutes with rapid certainty but in the ball park of 3-5 minutes.

e.g. for a MAP test at an incremental increase of 25W/min which I use for amateurs/masters, then typically MAP (mean maximal 1-minute power during the incremental test to exhaustion) equates to about the power a rider can sustain for about 3-minutes. For elite riders we use a 20W/min rate and they may well be able to sustain their MAP for a bit longer, but it's quite variable for various reasons, e.g. the different anaerobic capacities of riders.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

What formula is that ?

viewtopic.php?p=1844106#p1844106

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

As Rollthedice says, it doesn't add up, 2 world tour teams have the next Hinault and could not see it. Then BOOM in a 2 week period he goes from Grupetto to Podium contender.

The cluelessness and tatics were fixed in that 2 week period? Really?

Actually, I have learned from the clinic that he found a wonder drug which turned his physiology completely and permanently in one night and therefore he has been the best for four years (so far).

Keep reading, you'll find out that sporting federations are corrupt and testing labs help teams beat the tests too boot!

Must be, clinic says so.....a breeding ground for paranoia

Nope the clinic discusses it. WADA, investigative Journalists and whistleblowers says so. But hey no doubt you'll dismiss them too and continue to attack the clinic.

 

[bigcog]

Though Grappe says the testing was a good step, he told Cyclingnews that the process was insufficient; that there were numerous aspects that could have been measured or published but weren’t; and that the results mean little without the context of a longitudinal system of evaluation.

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

“What is surprising is that they didn’t give us the maximum heart rate – it’s not there, they didn’t give the result. I don’t know why. Similarly, they didn’t give the lactate threshold. Explosiveness, the same; there are no explosiveness values – efforts of a few seconds. That would have been interesting to see

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froomes-physiological-testing-insufficient-says-grappe/

“And surprisingly, we don’t have a value for gross efficiency. That I find very surprising. It’s the relationship between power and oxygen consumption. If he is 21% or 23% efficient, it’s not the same. That impacts upon the level of effort on climbs; you don’t produce the same number of watts with 23% efficiency as with 21%. But they haven’t given those values.

“It’s not a complete picture,” Grappe concludes. “It shows that he has a very high VO2max – up there with the highest in athletes – but on the other hand we don’t know his power profile, that’s what’s missing. It's not sufficient as a guage of anti-doping. Many riders can have that profile, but it is necessary to go further in the evaluation."

Some that data that he complains about not being there in the document is there e.g. HR, in the doc on GSK site.

 

[acoggan]

Though Grappe says the testing was a good step, he told Cyclingnews that the process was insufficient; that there were numerous aspects that could have been measured or published but weren’t; and that the results mean little without the context of a longitudinal system of evaluation.

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

“What is surprising is that they didn’t give us the maximum heart rate – it’s not there, they didn’t give the result. I don’t know why. Similarly, they didn’t give the lactate threshold. Explosiveness, the same; there are no explosiveness values – efforts of a few seconds. That would have been interesting to see

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froomes-physiological-testing-insufficient-says-grappe/

“And surprisingly, we don’t have a value for gross efficiency. That I find very surprising. It’s the relationship between power and oxygen consumption. If he is 21% or 23% efficient, it’s not the same. That impacts upon the level of effort on climbs; you don’t produce the same number of watts with 23% efficiency as with 21%. But they haven’t given those values.

“It’s not a complete picture,” Grappe concludes. “It shows that he has a very high VO2max – up there with the highest in athletes – but on the other hand we don’t know his power profile, that’s what’s missing. It's not sufficient as a guage of anti-doping. Many riders can have that profile, but it is necessary to go further in the evaluation."

Some that data that he complains about not being there in the document is there e.g. HR, in the doc on GSK site.

Submaximal, but not maximal.

Elsewhere I've seen his maximal heart rate reported as 174 beats/min, but I don't recall where.

 

[bigcog]

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.

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

Potential for what? Are you really saying that if Svein Tuft started winning GT's that you would have expected it because of the potential he's shown? Really?

John Swanson

You said he never did a thing of note. I'd say coming 14th in an ITT in your first year as a pro in the TDF shows some potential, like being pretty good at the ITT at the end of grand tour. Particularly given his lack of nouse when it comes to cycling in general in comparison to typical europe based 1st year pros.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

When evaluating a rider, what qualities would they have which would indicate GT potential?

- Success at a very young age, winning local pro races while a teen
- Continued success as a neopro, with good placings in one-day and short stage races.
- Demonstrated ability to climb and time trial, with some explosiveness (all-rounder, but does not typically beat the specialists in any niche)
- Early success at GT's with top ten or fifteen on GC as their first result.
- By 23 they are on the podium for a GC and may have taken a monument as well.

Riders that fit this profile? At age 23 we have:

- Hinault who picked up Liege, Ghent-Wevelgem, Tour du Limousin, and Criterium Dauphine. Won the Tour the following year
- Fignon won the Tour and picked up 7th at the Vuelta
- Sean Kelly picked up 4th at the Vuelta and a handful of stages. A few stages in the Tour and killed it in the Belgian classics
- Bernard Thevenet was 9th in the Tour, won the Tour de Romandie and podiumed at the Dauphine
- Eddy Merckx had the Giro, Roubaix and a World Champion's jersey
- Greg Lemond was on the podium at the Tour

These aren't their palmares by age 23, these are what they did during the year they were 23!! You know, I'm just picking champions at random here. See a pattern? Still not clear?

- Chris Froome was 83rd at the Tour. Got 4th at the Jayco Herald Sun Tour (so there is that!). Podium at the Giro dell'Appennino!! <--- Highlight of his year, actually. From there it's pretty grim. 84th at Liege, 138th at Amstel, 121st at Ghent-Wevelgem, 104th at Volta ao Algarve. And those are his better results.

Big engine = big results unless they flame out in the transition from Espoir to neopro. Unless you're Christopher Froome and you manage to hide that engine until you are 27 unlike any person with similar physiology that came before him.

John Swanson

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

"
Are you misreading 14th as 4th?

Because just to make it clear, Froome finished 14th.

Nothing special for a 23 year old, nothing special at all. Keep digging through his results list though. Maybe something will stick."

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. I did say you would say he should have finished first or near the very top even as first year pro.

And why not. Froome is a 2 time Tour de France champion. He's not some guy who cracks the top 10 every now and again, he's the dominant cyclist of his era and physiologically the greatest of all time.

And we shouldn't expect him to finish near the top as a first year pro?

Andy in his first year as a pro finished 2nd in the Giro (at 21 years old). Froome is way better than Andy ever was. Nairo was the 3rd best climber in the race in his first gt as a pro and finished 2nd in his 2nd (as a 22 and then 23 year old). Valverde podiumed a gt and a worlds. Sagan was winning races in his first year (at 19).

These are all people 2 or 3 levels below Froome in the "talent" stakes.

But Froome was really rocking that potential by finishing top 20 in one stage out of 21

Who said he's the greatest physiologically of all time ? I thought Lemond was held up as that individual. So if someone doesn't start immediately having big results they must be a fraud, ignoring their background, health etc.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Can someone who believes that Froome had 17% body fat please post a picture to illustrate this?

Because at Barloworld he looks a normal thin pro in the pictures.

At Sky he looks like a Belsen camp prisoner.

16,9% body fat was in 2007, at Konica Minolta team

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

When evaluating a rider, what qualities would they have which would indicate GT potential?

- Success at a very young age, winning local pro races while a teen
- Continued success as a neopro, with good placings in one-day and short stage races.
- Demonstrated ability to climb and time trial, with some explosiveness (all-rounder, but does not typically beat the specialists in any niche)
- Early success at GT's with top ten or fifteen on GC as their first result.
- By 23 they are on the podium for a GC and may have taken a monument as well.

Riders that fit this profile? At age 23 we have:

- Hinault who picked up Liege, Ghent-Wevelgem, Tour du Limousin, and Criterium Dauphine. Won the Tour the following year
- Fignon won the Tour and picked up 7th at the Vuelta
- Sean Kelly picked up 4th at the Vuelta and a handful of stages. A few stages in the Tour and killed it in the Belgian classics
- Bernard Thevenet was 9th in the Tour, won the Tour de Romandie and podiumed at the Dauphine
- Eddy Merckx had the Giro, Roubaix and a World Champion's jersey
- Greg Lemond was on the podium at the Tour

These aren't their palmares by age 23, these are what they did during the year they were 23!! You know, I'm just picking champions at random here. See a pattern? Still not clear?

- Chris Froome was 83rd at the Tour. Got 4th at the Jayco Herald Sun Tour (so there is that!). Podium at the Giro dell'Appennino!! <--- Highlight of his year, actually. From there it's pretty grim. 84th at Liege, 138th at Amstel, 121st at Ghent-Wevelgem, 104th at Volta ao Algarve. And those are his better results.

Big engine = big results unless they flame out in the transition from Espoir to neopro. Unless you're Christopher Froome and you manage to hide that engine until you are 27 unlike any person with similar physiology that came before him.

John Swanson

Given your so confident in your opinion, how's he doing it then ?

We have been here before. This isn't the first time. I'll leave you with a few names: Riis, Chiappuci, Indurain. These were guys that had similar results (i.e., potential) to Froome as 23 year-olds during the age before peptides, oxygen vector drugs and the like. They also underwent incredible transformations...

John Swanson

 

[mewmewmew13]

Re: Re:

Can someone who believes that Froome had 17% body fat please post a picture to illustrate this?

Because at Barloworld he looks a normal thin pro in the pictures.

At Sky he looks like a Belsen camp prisoner.

16,9% body fat was in 2007, at Konica Minolta team

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Can someone who believes that Froome had 17% body fat please post a picture to illustrate this?

Because at Barloworld he looks a normal thin pro in the pictures.

At Sky he looks like a Belsen camp prisoner.

16,9% body fat was in 2007, at Konica Minolta team

wow, that's a Bianchi he's riding, so at Barlowold he was quite fat too!

 

[King Boonen]

Though Grappe says the testing was a good step, he told Cyclingnews that the process was insufficient; that there were numerous aspects that could have been measured or published but weren’t; and that the results mean little without the context of a longitudinal system of evaluation.

“It is very insufficient. It shows that he has a huge aerobic potential, but that’s it, there are no more indications than that,” said Grappe.

“What is surprising is that they didn’t give us the maximum heart rate – it’s not there, they didn’t give the result. I don’t know why. Similarly, they didn’t give the lactate threshold. Explosiveness, the same; there are no explosiveness values – efforts of a few seconds. That would have been interesting to see

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froomes-physiological-testing-insufficient-says-grappe/

“And surprisingly, we don’t have a value for gross efficiency. That I find very surprising. It’s the relationship between power and oxygen consumption. If he is 21% or 23% efficient, it’s not the same. That impacts upon the level of effort on climbs; you don’t produce the same number of watts with 23% efficiency as with 21%. But they haven’t given those values.

“It’s not a complete picture,” Grappe concludes. “It shows that he has a very high VO2max – up there with the highest in athletes – but on the other hand we don’t know his power profile, that’s what’s missing. It's not sufficient as a guage of anti-doping. Many riders can have that profile, but it is necessary to go further in the evaluation."

Grappe has the connections to ask the questions, but he also can just go check on twitter and find this:

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart · 1 hr1 hour ago
@Scienceofsport larger data set will be on the @GSK_HPL website after 10am today. Then the full data set in the journal paper.

Maybe he should temper his comments until the full data set comes out. Then he can criticise if it doesn't contain everything.