The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

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

=> That not 16.9% body fat... I can show you pics of Lance/Basso and others who look just like that.

It's ridiculous to think that at Barlo world he wasn't around 10% like every pro.

Also, if he was that fat, why didn't they pursue that narrative before? BS.

This is absurd.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Re: Re:

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

=> That not 16.9% body fat... I can show you pics of Lance/Basso and others who look just like that.

It's ridiculous to think that at Barlo world he wasn't around 10% like every pro.

Also, if he was that fat, why didn't they pursue that narrative before? BS.

This is absurd.

i agree this is not 16.9% body fat...imagine what he must need to look like if he were at that %...I wish Michelle would post a pic of him from that time..

 

[King Boonen]

I thought this thread was about the data? Please lets not turn it into another stupid photo assessment thread. There has been some really interesting discussion so far, don't ruin it.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Re:

I thought this thread was about the data? Please lets not turn it into another stupid photo assessment thread. There has been some really interesting discussion so far, don't ruin it.

Only if the mods return Contador's Head

 

[mewmewmew13]

I agree the pics do not need to be repeated /quoted every reply but it is hard to 'visualize' differences in body fat % mentally.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

I agree the pics do not need to be repeated /quoted every reply but it is hard to 'visualize' differences in body fat % mentally.

And pictures don't help because they are utterly misleading. I could post pictures of my forearms that would make me look to be in the 6-10% range but then post pictures of my stomach which would put me in the 10-15% range. I could do it after a meal and you'd think more like 20%.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the data produced from these tests (and with that in mind the 2007 test is very relevant) not make silly assertions about things that are impossible to judge based on photos. That can only end up in an argument as has happened so many times before and seems like an attempt to derail what could be the most interesting thread in the clinic for a very long time.

 

[MTBrider]

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

Your description fits for a racers who started at a young are. Late entry riders follow a different path. And lets face if Froome was successful in 2007 at 23 with 16% body fat, then I think everybody can be 100% confident that he was on EPO.

Even then, in the pro-ranks a rider with 16% body fat is going to get absolutely crushed no matter what the size of their engine or how much EPO they are taking. You can not be that fat and be successful as a Pro. The fact that he was racing as a Pro is a testament as to how good his engine is.

When I am scouting a riders, I pay attention to their body fat. The skinny racer winning junior races is probably tapped out, the fat kid who manages a top 10 has potential.

 

[IndianCyclist]

what would be interesting is to compare other riders who have similar VO2 max values. Peraud is supposed to have 87-88 and EBH is also around 86 yet non of them are consistent like Froome and only some of them are climbers.
If they can release all of the other riders data who along with Froome were tested in 2007, it can put the whole thing in perspective w.r.t the peloton.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I’m surprised there hasn’t been more discussion outside the Clinic on the massive disconnect between the reported 75.6 kg weight in 2007, and Froome’s own statement to Kimmage that he was at 70-71 kg beginning with Barloworld. The only way both of these claims can be correct is if he lost about 5 kg between 2007 and 2008 or 2009. But assuming he did, did he or did he not retain his huge V02max?

If he did, then he would have been even more of a beast than he should have been even with the extra weight. We’re talking Chris Froome as he was in August this year when he submitted to the recent tests. At 70-71 kg and with a V02max of about 6.0 liters, he might not have blown everyone away on PSM, but he would have been right with Quintana and all the other best climbers.

If he didn’t retain his huge V02 max—if he lost power with weight, which is probably what you would expect—then he might not have improved significantly from 2007. But then one has to ask, when and how did he increase his V02max, getting it back or close to the level of 2007? Even forgetting the overnight transformation from Poland to Spain, this scenario implies he lost weight, lost power, then after several years, regained all the power back, not only without regaining any of the weight, but actually losing some more for good measure. First, he couldn’t lose five kg without losing a corresponding amount of power. Then he managed to get all that power back while losing still more weight.

Even if one wants to speculate on a scenario like that, it’s noteworthy that Froome himself has never suggested this is what happened. In the same Kimmage interview, when the question came up about his massive improvement, he threw out a V02max/kg value from back in I think 2007, and suggested it could have increased substantially if he lost some weight. IOW, the same story that is being pushed following these recent tests. Nowhere AFAIK does he ever suggest that his absolute V02max increased substantially at any time during his pro career.

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 underestimate the fraction of VO2max required/sustained.

OK, I think I understand that now. But let’s assume that Froome’s utilization is 90%. Then we can estimate his efficiency at about 22.6%. We wouldn’t expect his utilization to be much greater than this, so this is probably close to a minimum estimate.

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.

Well, you can say that the 86-87% ratio is typical for an all-rounder, whereas it would be expected to be even higher for a climber or GT contender.

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

Yet slightly higher than the threshold used to define Froome’s sustainable power. Obviously, definitions of sustainable power or FTP vary to some extent. We’ve discussed this here before.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

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

=> That not 16.9% body fat... I can show you pics of Lance/Basso and others who look just like that.

It's ridiculous to think that at Barlo world he wasn't around 10% like every pro.

Also, if he was that fat, why didn't they pursue that narrative before? BS.

This is absurd.

i agree this is not 16.9% body fat...imagine what he must need to look like if he were at that %...I wish Michelle would post a pic of him from that time..

For the record, Froome was reportedly 68kgs in 2006

http://www.melbourne2006.com.au/Participants/Participants?ID=108942

 

[thehog]

MI, yes, it all came down to 6kg, that's it. If Froome was 67kg in 2007, he would have won the Tour, in 2008 as well and the 2009 / 2010 Giro's.

When he was 69kg, that wasn't enough. It needed to be exactly 67kg to find his hidden power from the 2007 test, that never worked in races.

It all makes perfect sense.

 

[markene2]

Froome in tip top shape is 61-63kg no doubt in my mind. Have worked in the psych ward with anorextics for a few years. You kinda learn to see gauge the weight.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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

=> That not 16.9% body fat... I can show you pics of Lance/Basso and others who look just like that.

It's ridiculous to think that at Barlo world he wasn't around 10% like every pro.

Also, if he was that fat, why didn't they pursue that narrative before? BS.

This is absurd.

i agree this is not 16.9% body fat...imagine what he must need to look like if he were at that %...I wish Michelle would post a pic of him from that time..

For the record, Froome was reportedly 68kgs in 2006

http://www.melbourne2006.com.au/Participants/Participants?ID=108942

Can this be deleted from the Internet?

 

[mewmewmew13]

yes go to it hoggie

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The one paper that shows the inverse relationship between GE and VO2max:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

provides data on 11 pro riders, no GT winners, but a cross section of riders, the most successful GT rider placing top 4 in GTs several times.

Now take all this data with a grain of salt for various reasons (nature of efficiency reported, the duration sustainable for each at 90% VO2max would vary, era of pros concerned etc). So comparison to Froome's data quite possibly not valid, but there are not a whole lot of studies with efficiency and VO2max data.

 

[JRanton]

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.

It's not fair to say there weren't any results in that period around the test though. Look at the 2007 Giro delle Regioni, a prestigious U23 race that took place in May of that year. You probably remember the story of how he crashed multiple times in that race costing him the overall win. He won one of the mountain stages beating the likes of Rui Costa and Mollema. Bare in mind he was overweight (for a cyclist) and on a tiny South African continental team I'd say that was pretty damn impressive. There were other good results in 2007 too.

His first year at Barloworld in 2008 was promising and the TdF too especially considering his Mum passed away just before the race. That 14th place in the final TT was impressive especially considering there were a fair few finishing ahead of him who were blatantly juicing. He didn't really kick on in his second year at Barloworld (rode a respectable Giro but little else) and then admittedly showed basically nothing at Sky that pointed to what was to come at the 2011 Vuelta. Picking up the Bilharzia in 2009 makes sense really when you look at the results.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Google search suggestion: Barloworld 2008 tour de france doping.

You're welcome.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

The one paper that shows the inverse relationship between GE and VO2max:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

There is another paper that reports an inverse relationship, though it's between delta efficiency, not gross, and one of the authors is on both papers:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 May;41(5):1096-101. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318191c802.
Muscle efficiency improves over time in world-class cyclists.
Santalla A1, Naranjo J, Terrados N.


PURPOSE: To determine the change in muscular efficiency in world-class professional cyclists during years of training/competition.

METHODS: Twelve male world-class professional road cyclists (mean +/- SD: age = 22.6 +/- 3.8 yr and VO(2max) = 75.5 +/- 3.3 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) performed an incremental test (starting at 100 W with workload increases of 50 W every 4-min interval until volitional exhaustion) before and after a five-season period. Delta efficiency (DE) was calculated from 100 W to that power output (PO) in which the RER was 1.

RESULTS: DE increased (P < 0.01) from 23.61 +/- 2.78% to 26.97 +/- 3.7% from the first to the fifth year, whereas VO(2max) showed no significant increase. A significant inverse correlation (r = -0.620; P = 0.032) between DE and VO(2max) (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was found in the fifth year, whereas no significant correlation between these variables was found in the first year. A significant inverse correlation (r = -0.63; P = 0.029) was found between the increase percentage in DE (DeltaDE) and VO(2max) (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) in the fifth year, whereas no significant correlation was found between these variables in the first year.

CONCLUSION: The results show an increase in DE in world-class professional cyclists during a five-season training/competition period, without significant variations in VO(2max). The results also suggest that the increase in DE could be a possible way for performance compensation, especially in those subjects with lower VO(2max).

http://edzo.info.hu/images/MuscleEfficiency.pdf

The inverse relationship was not observed at the outset, but only after several years of training. The cyclists included GT winners, and though only twelve were examined, they were selected from a larger group of forty-two.

 

[thehog]

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.

It's not fair to say there weren't any results in that period around the test though. Look at the 2007 Giro delle Regioni, a prestigious U23 race that took place in May of that year. You probably remember the story of how he crashed multiple times in that race costing him the overall win. He won one of the mountain stages beating the likes of Rui Costa and Mollema. Bare in mind he was overweight (for a cyclist) and on a tiny South African continental team I'd say that was pretty damn impressive. There were other good results in 2007 too.

His first year at Barloworld in 2008 was promising and the TdF too especially considering his Mum passed away just before the race. That 14th place in the final TT was impressive especially considering there were a fair few finishing ahead of him who were blatantly juicing. He didn't really kick on in his second year at Barloworld (rode a respectable Giro but little else) and then admittedly showed basically nothing at Sky that pointed to what was to come at the 2011 Vuelta. Picking up the Bilharzia in 2009 makes sense really when you look at the results.

You left out all the results back on the South African scene in those 100km races and one day races at Barloworld where he bearly finished like Liege and Amstel. That big engine that showed up for the single UCI test and one Tour ITT just wouldn't work until he hit 67kg. At 69kg the big engine wouldn't work either. It wasn't until after Poland 2011 where lost those two extra kgs that the engine engaged and he was able to go from water carrier to sprinting up mountains against known dopers.

Who would have thought it was a matter of 2kgs?

 

[Night Rider]

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.

Froome was second to Tony Martin in the 2011 Vuelta ITT putting out 5.8 watts/kg according to his power file, when you adjust for the Osymetric rings the actual power would have been lower. As others have said, if the 2007 test his above board then he should have been smashing TT's, 5.6 at that age and weight is not ordinary. In fact any coach worth his salt would have thought he had the next Cancellara on his hands. Instead he was out in the wilderness for four years.

Your estimate for women's FTP is way overstated, would be 1 watt / kg under mens approx.

 

[IndianCyclist]

The younger Froome may have approx the same p/w & Vo2 max as before but it is unlikely that p/w would be the same after 200 k and several days of hard riding like it is now

 

[Franklin]

Re:

I thought this thread was about the data? Please lets not turn it into another stupid photo assessment thread. There has been some really interesting discussion so far, don't ruin it.

It's not just the photo, this is about the data. It's one thing to judge pictures... it's another thing to accept he rode around with 17% fat.

Lieing about weight is an old one.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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

=> That not 16.9% body fat... I can show you pics of Lance/Basso and others who look just like that.

It's ridiculous to think that at Barlo world he wasn't around 10% like every pro.

Also, if he was that fat, why didn't they pursue that narrative before? BS.

This is absurd.

i agree this is not 16.9% body fat...imagine what he must need to look like if he were at that %...I wish Michelle would post a pic of him from that time..

For the record, Froome was reportedly 68kgs in 2006

http://www.melbourne2006.com.au/Participants/Participants?ID=108942

For the record he was 1.75 m tall then as well.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

The one paper that shows the inverse relationship between GE and VO2max:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

There is another paper that reports an inverse relationship, though it's between delta efficiency, not gross, and one of the authors is on both papers:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 May;41(5):1096-101. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318191c802.
Muscle efficiency improves over time in world-class cyclists.
Santalla A1, Naranjo J, Terrados N.


PURPOSE: To determine the change in muscular efficiency in world-class professional cyclists during years of training/competition.

METHODS: Twelve male world-class professional road cyclists (mean +/- SD: age = 22.6 +/- 3.8 yr and VO(2max) = 75.5 +/- 3.3 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) performed an incremental test (starting at 100 W with workload increases of 50 W every 4-min interval until volitional exhaustion) before and after a five-season period. Delta efficiency (DE) was calculated from 100 W to that power output (PO) in which the RER was 1.

RESULTS: DE increased (P < 0.01) from 23.61 +/- 2.78% to 26.97 +/- 3.7% from the first to the fifth year, whereas VO(2max) showed no significant increase. A significant inverse correlation (r = -0.620; P = 0.032) between DE and VO(2max) (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was found in the fifth year, whereas no significant correlation between these variables was found in the first year. A significant inverse correlation (r = -0.63; P = 0.029) was found between the increase percentage in DE (DeltaDE) and VO(2max) (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) in the fifth year, whereas no significant correlation was found between these variables in the first year.

CONCLUSION: The results show an increase in DE in world-class professional cyclists during a five-season training/competition period, without significant variations in VO(2max). The results also suggest that the increase in DE could be a possible way for performance compensation, especially in those subjects with lower VO(2max).

http://edzo.info.hu/images/MuscleEfficiency.pdf

The inverse relationship was not observed at the outset, but only after several years of training. The cyclists included GT winners, and though only twelve were examined, they were selected from a larger group of forty-two.

Thanks for link, will check it out.

When I look at the chart I posted earlier, what I don't get are the very high efficiencies quoted. Two riders at 28%, one at 27% and another at 26%. Just eye balling the chart, it doesn't exactly look like the strongest inverse correlation. Maybe they were actually DE not GE as it suggests. Need to look at it again but not really sure it's going to give us much insight wrt Froome's test.

 

[JRanton]

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.

It's not fair to say there weren't any results in that period around the test though. Look at the 2007 Giro delle Regioni, a prestigious U23 race that took place in May of that year. You probably remember the story of how he crashed multiple times in that race costing him the overall win. He won one of the mountain stages beating the likes of Rui Costa and Mollema. Bare in mind he was overweight (for a cyclist) and on a tiny South African continental team I'd say that was pretty damn impressive. There were other good results in 2007 too.

His first year at Barloworld in 2008 was promising and the TdF too especially considering his Mum passed away just before the race. That 14th place in the final TT was impressive especially considering there were a fair few finishing ahead of him who were blatantly juicing. He didn't really kick on in his second year at Barloworld (rode a respectable Giro but little else) and then admittedly showed basically nothing at Sky that pointed to what was to come at the 2011 Vuelta. Picking up the Bilharzia in 2009 makes sense really when you look at the results.

You left out all the results back on the South African scene in those 100km races and one day races at Barloworld where he bearly finished like Liege and Amstel. That big engine that showed up for the single UCI test and one Tour ITT just wouldn't work until he hit 67kg. At 69kg the big engine wouldn't work either. It wasn't until after Poland 2011 where lost those two extra kgs that the engine engaged and he was able to go from water carrier to sprinting up mountains against known dopers.

Who would have thought it was a matter of 2kgs?

Well it's obvious that the 2kg drop in weight only played a very small part in his improvement before the 2011 Vuelta. The absolute key to his enormous improvement was the treatment he received for Bilharzia after the Tour de Suisse. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that things finally all came together for Froome at that Vuelta after those worms were no longer able to eat his red blood cells!