The Froome Files, test data only thread

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

feel free to criticize Froome????

Swart has already claimed Froome has done more than anyone else when he obviously and blatantly hasn't...which even you now seem to acknowledge...did he get it wrong as he is daft...or because he has an agenda? which?

Someone upthread hit on the most likely answer IMO. That Dr. Swart is not entirely knowledgeable about what has been released/ published by cyclists. That doesn't make him daft and that doesn't mean that he has an agenda. It means that he most likely is much more conversant of the literature in his own field of physiology than this small niche involving cyclists. Learning the new literature is part of the process of writing the paper.

But by all means continue hammering on him for one comment. I've stated that I don't think all his comments are accurate and that he should ignore most of the anon commenters who are trolling him. But the big difference is that I am not questioning his integrity as a scientist by one incident. Ross Tucker's endorsement speaks volumes.

EDIT: Correcting my factual error pointed out by gillan1969 below.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

feel free to criticize Froome????

Swart has already claimed Froome has done more than anyone else when he obviously and blatantly hasn't...which even you now seem to acknowledge...did he get it wrong as he is daft...or because he has an agenda? which?

Someone upthread hit on the most likely answer IMO. That Dr. Swart is not entirely knowledgeable about what has been released/ published by cyclists. That doesn't make him daft and that doesn't mean that he has an agenda. It means that he most likely is much more conversant of the literature in his own field of physiology than this small niche involving cyclists. Learning the new literature is part of the process of writing the paper.

But by all means continue hammering on him for one tweet. I've stated that I don't think all his tweets are accurate and that he should ignore most of the anon tweeters.

he claimed that in an interview not a tweet...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

Powermeters are not scales (or at least that's not what they are intended to be). Any data for body mass stored in a power file somewhere would therefore simply be what was entered into it.

Hence the term "stored". For meaningful data it's stored correctly. Withings wifi scales amoungst others will upload to TrainingPeaks etc.

You know this stuff.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

feel free to criticize Froome????

Swart has already claimed Froome has done more than anyone else when he obviously and blatantly hasn't...which even you now seem to acknowledge...did he get it wrong as he is daft...or because he has an agenda? which?

Someone upthread hit on the most likely answer IMO. That Dr. Swart is not entirely knowledgeable about what has been released/ published by cyclists. That doesn't make him daft and that doesn't mean that he has an agenda. It means that he most likely is much more conversant of the literature in his own field of physiology than this small niche involving cyclists. Learning the new literature is part of the process of writing the paper.

But by all means continue hammering on him for one tweet. I've stated that I don't think all his tweets are accurate and that he should ignore most of the anon tweeters.

Swart has no frame of reference here, DJP. He's like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

10 points if you get the movie

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

Powermeters are not scales (or at least that's not what they are intended to be). Any data for body mass stored in a power file somewhere would therefore simply be what was entered into it.

Athletes at this level, adhering to carefully prescribed training plans and utilizing state-of-the-art power meters for monitoring and analysis, are going to be diligent about making sure that the body weight data stored in the meter is current and accurate. Otherwise, there's no value to any of the resulting collected performance data.

Even a lowly has-been fatty master like myself keeps the weight values updated (although to be honest I'm forever wanting to cheat my weight down a little just to get the numbers up).

 

[Farcanal]

Re: Re:

More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

Powermeters are not scales (or at least that's not what they are intended to be). Any data for body mass stored in a power file somewhere would therefore simply be what was entered into it.

Athletes at this level, training with carefully prescribed training plans and utilizing state-of-the-art power meters for monitoring and analysis, are going to be diligent about making sure that the body weight data stored in the meter is current and accurate. Otherwise, there's no value to any of the resulting collected performance data.

Even a lowly has-been fatty master like myself keeps the weight values updated (although to be honest I'm forever wanting to cheap my weight down a little just to get the numbers up).

Why does a power meter need the riders mass? It is using strain gauges to measure the force at a known moment, hence the torque required to drive the bike. The angular momentum is also measured giving all the data required to calculate the power being transmitted. Surely all that the rider's mass would allow is the calculation of w/kg? Is that relevant to the individual whose aim should be to maximise his power output? The w/kg figure is pretty meaningless if the mass has to be input manually. As you rightly point out, you can kid yourself by fiddling the figure.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

So has anyone been able to ask these two baffling questions, yet?

How is it possible that Froome hits 420w/ftp at under 140bpm, while having an additional 30-40 bpm left in the tank? Does this mean that this is like "over-rev" on a two stroke moto? 30-40 bpm is a lot of over-rev...

And how is it possible that Sky- the super meticulous, training gods of cycling- have not managed to get one single, solitary watt more from Froome, over 5 years of development?

Seems like lots of arguing about faxes and stuff, while everyone overlooks the obvious.

 

[Farcanal]

So has anyone been able to ask these two baffling questions, yet?

How is it possible that Froome hits 420w/ftp at under 140bpm, while having an additional 30-40 bpm left in the tank? Does this mean that this is like "over-rev" on a two stroke moto? 30-40 bpm is a lot of over-rev...

And how is it possible that Sky- the super meticulous, training gods of cycling- have not managed to get one single, solitary watt more from Froome, over 5 years of development?

Seems like lots of arguing about faxes and stuff, while everyone overlooks the obvious.

Was his max heart rate measured or reported

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

Powermeters are not scales (or at least that's not what they are intended to be). Any data for body mass stored in a power file somewhere would therefore simply be what was entered into it.

Hence the term "stored". For meaningful data it's stored correctly. Withings wifi scales amoungst others will upload to TrainingPeaks etc.

You know this stuff.

Yes, I do know this stuff, and weight is not stored in standard powermeter files. That's why, e.g., extra effort had to be expended to pull it from TrainingPeaks down into WKO4 (i.e., simply importing the powermeter files wasn't enough).

 

[acoggan]

So has anyone been able to ask these two baffling questions, yet?

How is it possible that Froome hits 420w/ftp at under 140bpm, while having an additional 30-40 bpm left in the tank? Does this mean that this is like "over-rev" on a two stroke moto? 30-40 bpm is a lot of over-rev...

Heart rate will always lag behind power and VO2 during an incremental exercise test.

And how is it possible that Sky- the super meticulous, training gods of cycling- have not managed to get one single, solitary watt more from Froome, over 5 years of development?

The fact that his VO2max (in L/min) apparently hasn't increased doesn't mean that his power hasn't gone up, even in absolute terms.

 

[Merckx index]

The fact that his VO2max (in L/min) apparently hasn't increased doesn't mean that his power has gone up, even in absolute terms.

I think you mean that it doesn’t mean that his power has not gone up. That a stable V02max is not inconsistent with an increase in power from other processes.

But the 2007 FAX also provided peak power and FTP, which also haven’t changed. So that argues against these other processes.

Having access to Froome's power data would only tell you how he transformed if they showed no increase in absolute power. In that case, any improvement in his performance (placings) would have to be due to other factors, e.g., reduced body mass, improved aerodynamics, better "racecraft", altered focus/role, etc.

We know it's not just improvement in placings, that it's an improvement in power, relative at least, during races. A massive increase from pre-2011 to post-2011. Having Pinot-type data for this period would be very meaningful, either confirming or not the differences seen on the road. And while we can't have those data, apparently, for pre-2011, there are power data for that period that even Grappe was not allowed access to. Why? How is releasing old data going to compromise Froome’s position in the peloton today?

OTOH, if his power went up in absolute terms, you still wouldn't know the mechanism, e.g., whether it was due to an improvement in muscular metabolic fitness and/or efficiency, or any increase in VO2max due to microdosing with EPO.

Depends on how much it went up. I think even you, let alone others in the field, are going to recognize limits to efficiency improvements. The data that do exist suggest that riders who start with high V02max don’t see these increases in efficiency, though granted we don’t have enough information to conclude anything very definitively.

Also, this is where passport data could be helpful.

Note that the same logic applies to Pinot, i.e., his release of extensive power data doesn't tell you why he has improved, only that he has. In that regard, it is as much a PR exercise as Froome's release of his physiological data.

I disagree. We can compare Pinot’s data with his actual performances in races. If they’re consistent, we can at least argue that if he’s doping, he’s doing it all time. That is something that can be further investigated. Does any rider manipulate his blood all year round now? I rather doubt it, but it’s worth exploring. Has anyone even looked into what Pinot would have to be doing to keep his power up by doping? Compared that with passport data? When someone has, then maybe we can throw our hands up dramatically in the air and declare that his data are just PR.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

Powermeters are not scales (or at least that's not what they are intended to be). Any data for body mass stored in a power file somewhere would therefore simply be what was entered into it.

Hence the term "stored". For meaningful data it's stored correctly. Withings wifi scales amoungst others will upload to TrainingPeaks etc.

You know this stuff.

Yes, I do know this stuff, and weight is not stored in standard powermeter files. That's why, e.g., extra effort had to be expended to pull it from TrainingPeaks down into WKO4 (i.e., simply importing the powermeter files wasn't enough).

Point of clarification: I wasn't suggesting that the weight data is exportable from the head unit (I've never seen a TCX or FIT file exported that has that data and I'm not sure it's even buried in the metadata). My point was that elite athletes following highly specialized and personalized training programs/schedules are going to be tracking their weight diligently. Whether it's for entry into a head unit on the bike or logging for use by their coaching staff to calculate w/kg and other performance metris after the fact, there isn't a WT rider alive that isn't keeping track of their weight on a daily basis and most keep that data either in a training app or the old fashioned way: in a hand written training log.

As cyclists, we live and die by the weight scale, and it has been that way.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The concern being this was a hatchet job on Vayer more than testing on Froome. I'm not sure beating up on a person who's English is their second language is entirely admirable.

I get the feeling that Vayer can look after himself just fine.

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars. And if he's got that much to say (which, apparently, he has) then he should hire a translator. He seems to hold quite a high opinion of himself, but the jumbled mess of linguistic hurdles that he often presents makes him look the fool, and diminishes what may well be some valid points.

I thought the following was a bit rich, and I'm surprised it wasn't picked up on (although I'm stumbling through a lot of threads lately where reading comprehension seems to have gone out the window, or people haven't even bothered to properly educate themselves on the topic at hand to begin with).

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk
What would convince Vayer that Froome was clean? He once said that if Froome had a VO2 max of 90 then he might give him the benefit of the doubt, but not any more. “Nothing would convince me,” he says. “He should have called me a year ago and said, ‘Vayer, you make me angry, let’s sit together.’ If you are clean and you have doubters, you phone your doubters, don’t you think? Because I am quite influential.”

And modest.

Phone your doubters? No, actually, I don't think that's the way I would do it. Unless it was to tell them to fukc off. He states that nothing would convince him, and yet for some reason he feels that Froome should have called him.
Vayer is exhibiting delusions of grandeur there.

 

[sniper]

The concern being this was a hatchet job on Vayer more than testing on Froome. I'm not sure beating up on a person who's English is their second language is entirely admirable.

I get the feeling that Vayer can look after himself just fine.

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars. And if he's got that much to say (which, apparently, he has) then he should hire a translator. He seems to hold quite a high opinion of himself, but the jumbled mess of linguistic hurdles that he often presents makes him look the fool, and diminishes what may well be some valid points.

I thought the following was a bit rich, and I'm surprised it wasn't picked up on (although I'm stumbling through a lot of threads lately where reading comprehension seems to have gone out the window, or people haven't even bothered to properly educate themselves on the topic at hand to begin with).

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk
What would convince Vayer that Froome was clean? He once said that if Froome had a VO2 max of 90 then he might give him the benefit of the doubt, but not any more. “Nothing would convince me,” he says. “He should have called me a year ago and said, ‘Vayer, you make me angry, let’s sit together.’ If you are clean and you have doubters, you phone your doubters, don’t you think? Because I am quite influential.”

And modest.

Phone your doubters? No, actually, I don't think that's the way I would do it. Unless it was to tell them to fukc off. He states that nothing would convince him, and yet for some reason he feels that Froome should have called him.
Vayer is exhibiting delusions of grandeur there.

If you want cycling to shed the hypocrisy, you're defending and attacking the wrong people here.
I don't get what part of Swart's personality you find appealing. Everything he's said on the record to Moore and on twitter wrt Froome and the 2007 data just screams hypocrisy.
Vayer, i don't see him acting hypocrit. What has he done to anybody? Nothing much really. Harmless. Except he's placed suspicion over Team Sky. Good luck claiming that isn't justified.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Phone your doubters? No, actually, I don't think that's the way I would do it. Unless it was to tell them to fukc off. He states that nothing would convince him, and yet for some reason he feels that Froome should have called him.
Vayer is exhibiting delusions of grandeur there.

So why did Brailsford try to get in touch with the modest doubter? And then switched to the more modester Grappe of course to do an analysis on Froome's pre-selected SRM-files?

 

[sniper]

Lol, what a total crap story from Froome in the Esquire article about how he got the bruise on his knee.
(Makes Moore look stupid as well, i mean how gullible can you be?)

Every selfrespecting Dutch guy knows how to ride two bikes at once, and I can assure you it's pretty easy.
Even if the two bikes get entangled, you can just break, there's no need to hit the ground, unless you're going 30kmh, but that's silly with two bikes.
And should you nonetheless hit the ground, you will logically fall on your side.
maybe damage your hip, maybe a bit of elbow, but you'd never fall on your knee, for crying out loud.

Really makes you wonder, as it's not the first time Froome lies even about such apparently irrelevant details.
The word pathological springs to mind.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Lol, what a total crap story from Froome in the Esquire article about how he got the bruise on his knee.
(Makes Moore look stupid as well, i mean how gullible can you be?)

Every selfrespecting Dutch guy knows how to ride two bikes at once, and I can assure you it's pretty easy.
Even if the two bikes get entangled, you can just break, there's no need to hit the ground, unless you're going 30kmh, but that's silly with two bikes.
And should you nonetheless hit the ground, you will logically fall on your side.
maybe damage your hip, maybe a bit of elbow, but you'd never fall on your knee, for crying out loud.

Really makes you wonder, as it's not the first time Froome lies even about such apparently irrelevant details.
The word pathological springs to mind.

i did 40kms with two bikes when 15..(over the crow as well for those that know scottish hills)..

 

[Benotti69]

So has anyone been able to ask these two baffling questions, yet?

How is it possible that Froome hits 420w/ftp at under 140bpm, while having an additional 30-40 bpm left in the tank? Does this mean that this is like "over-rev" on a two stroke moto? 30-40 bpm is a lot of over-rev...

And how is it possible that Sky- the super meticulous, training gods of cycling- have not managed to get one single, solitary watt more from Froome, over 5 years of development?

Seems like lots of arguing about faxes and stuff, while everyone overlooks the obvious.

No one(Sky, Swart or Moore) has been able to provide an answer to the glaringly obvious.

But the whole point of this exercise is so that they can tell the world, backed by 'eminent' Journalist(i use that term ever so lightly) and 'eminent' sports scientist (who is looking to make a name for himself, imo) that they did the tests and Froome is a hugely gifted athlete who was too fat!

Sky and Froome will ring their hands and shake their heads next July and tell a host of 'fans with typewriters' that we have done all that was asked, so called 'independent' tests and showed the world that Froome is 'Hinaultesque' and wait for the comment from Brailsford, "if only Chris were French"!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Lol, what a total crap story from Froome in the Esquire article about how he got the bruise on his knee.
(Makes Moore look stupid as well, i mean how gullible can you be?)

Every selfrespecting Dutch guy knows how to ride two bikes at once, and I can assure you it's pretty easy.
Even if the two bikes get entangled, you can just break, there's no need to hit the ground, unless you're going 30kmh, but that's silly with two bikes.
And should you nonetheless hit the ground, you will logically fall on your side.
maybe damage your hip, maybe a bit of elbow, but you'd never fall on your knee, for crying out loud.

Really makes you wonder, as it's not the first time Froome lies even about such apparently irrelevant details.
The word pathological springs to mind.

How do you know it was lie? Froome is just naturally clumsy, it would not surprise me if it was true. I've never ridden 2 race bikes, maybe it's difficult, have done normal bike + race bike though,

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

How do you know it was lie? Froome is just naturally clumsy, it would not surprise me if it was true. I've never ridden 2 race bikes, maybe it's difficult, have done normal bike + race bike though,

Of course i can't rule out that it happened as he says it did
and fair, two race bikes more difficult, no doubt.
yet he'd have been all the more careful not to do anything stupid.
especially in the centre of Monaco, people watching, etc.
You're not gonna want to hit the ground then and there with two pricey bikes.
I don't buy it, but maybe i'm too skeptic.

 

[acoggan]

The fact that his VO2max (in L/min) apparently hasn't increased doesn't mean that his power has gone up, even in absolute terms.

I think you mean that it doesn’t mean that his power has not gone up. That a stable V02max is not inconsistent with an increase in power from other processes.

Yes, was trying to avoid a double negative and screwed up.

But the 2007 FAX also provided peak power and FTP, which also haven’t changed. So that argues against these other processes.

Peak power during an incremental exercise test is mostly a function of VO2max, so doesn't really tell you anything about muscular metabolic fitness/submaximal exercise performance.

I wasn't aware that the 2007 testing included any estimate of sustainable power. How was that obtained, and what does it show?

Having access to Froome's power data would only tell you how he transformed if they showed no increase in absolute power. In that case, any improvement in his performance (placings) would have to be due to other factors, e.g., reduced body mass, improved aerodynamics, better "racecraft", altered focus/role, etc.

We know it's not just improvement in placings, that it's an improvement in power, relative at least, during races. A massive increase from pre-2011 to post-2011.

If you already know the answer to the question you're asking, I don't see how the actual data helps you any.

[

OTOH, if his power went up in absolute terms, you still wouldn't know the mechanism, e.g., whether it was due to an improvement in muscular metabolic fitness and/or efficiency, or any increase in VO2max due to microdosing with EPO.

Depends on how much it went up. I think even you, let alone others in the field, are going to recognize limits to efficiency improvements. The data that do exist suggest that riders who start with high V02max don’t see these increases in efficiency, though granted we don’t have enough information to conclude anything very definitively.

Point being that all the power data in the world won't answer the question of whether efficiency (or muscular metabolic fitness) improved.

 

[Poursuivant]

Re: Re:

How do you know it was lie? Froome is just naturally clumsy, it would not surprise me if it was true. I've never ridden 2 race bikes, maybe it's difficult, have done normal bike + race bike though,

Of course i can't rule out that it happened as he says it did
and fair, two race bikes more difficult, no doubt.
yet he'd have been all the more careful not to do anything stupid.
especially in the centre of Monaco, people watching, etc.
You're not gonna want to hit the ground then and there with two pricey bikes.
I don't buy it, but maybe i'm too skeptic.

Nah you are right, Froome said the other day he was looking forward to the season, lol he is definitely lying through his teeth because I don't buy it. He said he is looking forward to being a father, lol I don't buy it, Brailsfraud, Kerrison, Leinders (insert generic Sky Criticism post)

Why don't you accept that, I am intrigued? Did he get the bruises bending down on his knees getting his aicar, is that it? Take the tinfoil hat off mate.

 

[harryh]

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

How do you know it was lie? Froome is just naturally clumsy, it would not surprise me if it was true. I've never ridden 2 race bikes, maybe it's difficult, have done normal bike + race bike though,

Of course i can't rule out that it happened as he says it did
and fair, two race bikes more difficult, no doubt.
yet he'd have been all the more careful not to do anything stupid.
especially in the centre of Monaco, people watching, etc.
You're not gonna want to hit the ground then and there with two pricey bikes.
I don't buy it, but maybe i'm too skeptic.

Nah you are right, Froome said the other day he was looking forward to the season, lol he is definitely lying through his teeth because I don't buy it. He said he is looking forward to being a father, lol I don't buy it, Brailsfraud, Kerrison, Leinders (insert generic Sky Criticism post)

Why don't you accept that, I am intrigued? Did he get the bruises bending down on his knees getting his aicar, is that it? Take the tinfoil hat off mate.

as i said it's a totally irrelevant lie, and he has an oeuvre of similar small, irrelevant lies.
though no problem either providing more substantial lies either. asthma, bilharzia, 2007 data.
you name it, he delivers.
i'm intrigued indeed.

 

[thehog]

Rather interesting. Need to review those numbers though...