The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

Re: Re:

None of you have ever had HR monitor drop its signal? This is hardly an unusual occurrence.

During a controlled test? No, never.

So that's you. I've seen it happen many times.

Then wear your mesh undershirt only and wear the strap over the that, stops slippage. For women on the sports bra or under strap. Nerd or bees wax also works very well. It's really not hard. Tennis players, gymnasts etc. use resin. Each sport has their own methods.

HogGains.

 

[TeflonDub]

Re: Re:

Genuine question: how would this detect if the 525W was 485W from Froome + 40W from a motor?

It can't directly (since the only test for a motor is to find the motor) but an extra 40W from an external source would likely result in a significantly elevated reported GE rather than it being within the normal range (and it was within the normal range).

From the study's conclusion:
"Two unique characteristics of this case report are the high GE in relation to VO2peak when compared to that reported for other professional cyclists,....".

Seems like something that is material enough to validate that a known force delivered through the cranks is what got measured by the lab equipment.

 

[TeflonDub]

Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Agreed, only longitudinal data would show anything. This test was always going to show the physiology of somebody capable of winning the TdF. The claimed 8-year gap between physiological tests is far more interesting to say there is no data available that might make the transformation of August 2011 less remarkable than it appears from the outside looking in.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

By the way, based on the VO2max, GE and body weight data from the ambient conditions test, I did up a plot of Froome's W/kg (from aerobic metabolism only, i.e. no anaerobic contribution) v fractional utilisation of VO2max, and then showed where the 4mmol/l point was. Equated to ~86-87% fractional utilisation, which for well trained riders would be something you'd expect to be able to sustain for quite a long time. For 15-20-minutes, then you'd expect to be able to sustain a higher % of VO2max:

Blog post:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/looking-under-froomes-hood-again.html

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Agreed, only longitudinal data would show anything. This test was always going to show the physiology of somebody capable of winning the TdF. The claimed 8-year gap between physiological tests is far more interesting to say there is no data available that might make the transformation of August 2011 less remarkable than it appears from the outside looking in.

I doubt longitudinal test data would answer that question either.

 

[Merckx index]

By the way, based on the VO2max, GE and body weight data from the ambient conditions test, I did up a plot of Froome's W/kg (from aerobic metabolism only, i.e. no anaerobic contribution) v fractional utilisation of VO2max, and then showed where the 4mmol/l point was. Equated to ~86-87% fractional utilisation, which for well trained riders would be something you'd expect to be able to sustain for quite a long time. For 15-20-minutes, then you'd expect to be able to sustain a higher % of VO2max:

To get an idea of Froome’s maximum sustained output, I used the 23.6% GE in hot/humid conditions reported here, assumed 90% utilization, and his racing weight of supposedly 67 kg. This gives an FTP of 6.53 watts/kg. But that actually represents about 83% of his measured peak power (525/67 = 7.84). That doesn’t make sense to me.

I see the same discrepancy in your calculations. You have apparently used 70 kg (about his weight when the study was actually performed) along with 23.0% for GE. This gives about 5.85 watts/kg, as you show on the graph. But again, his peak power was reported at 525 watts, or 7.5 watts/kg at 70 kg. 5.85/7.5 = 78%, not 86-87%.

To add to the confusion, the authors themselves, in the preliminary report, reported that Froome’s sustainable power was only 80% of his maximum. This was based on power determined at 4 mM lactate, whereas some athletes have been reported to sustain power at higher levels, so it could be an underestimate. But that doesn’t change the discrepancy between FTP calculated from GE and that based on the reported maximum power.

Maybe the peak power they reported was not that at V02max, but as far as I can tell from the preliminary report, it was. Or maybe the power relationship is different from the oxygenation relationship. But if that's the case, the peak power measurement doesn't seem very useful.

 

[gillan1969]

"In summary, this is the first study to report physiological characteristics of a multiple Tour de France champion in close to peak condition and suggests what may be the prerequisite physiological and thermoregulatory capacities for success at this level."

However, despite having these prerequisite physiological and thermoregulatory capacities, and despite being a full-time professional cyclist cyclist, the subject was unable to utilise them for around 6 years. The authors are seeking funding to find out what allowed the subject to suddenly unleash this potential. If such 'talent' can effectively hide in a professional environment, how many other medal winners are hiding in the general population. This we hope to answer and is the big 'take-away' from the study.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Peak power output is not VO2max. PPO in this report was the 30-sec mean maximal power power from an incremental test to exhaustion with power demand increasing at 30W/min, and accordingly would include a sizeable contribution from anaerobic work capacity.

That's why my chart says Aerobic Power.

Peak power at 525W is 106W above the 4mmol value of 419W. Let's assume for a moment the 4mmol value is his actual threshold, and once power demand went beyond that he was starting to draw on his anaerobic work capacity.

And let's assume all the additional energy demand was met via anaerobic metabolism (even though when at threshold you still haven't hit VO2max).

The extra energy demand from anaerobic sources would be ~ 11-12kJ*, which is a pretty typical value.

I used 71kg.


* 106W at 30W/min = 212 seconds. Average power above 419W during that time = 106/2 W (it's a linear increase in power). So energy supply before exhaustion and above threshold aerobic power = t * W = 212 * 53 = 11.2kJ

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Genuine question: how would this detect if the 525W was 485W from Froome + 40W from a motor?

It can't directly (since the only test for a motor is to find the motor) but an extra 40W from an external source would likely result in a significantly elevated reported GE rather than it being within the normal range (and it was within the normal range).

From the study's conclusion:
"Two unique characteristics of this case report are the high GE in relation to VO2peak when compared to that reported for other professional cyclists,....".

Seems like something that is material enough to validate that a known force delivered through the cranks is what got measured by the lab equipment.

I did forget and was reminded on twitter - the power measured at the crank arm and by the ergometer were equivalent. If there was motor drive power assist then we would see crank arm power less than the ergometer by about the amount of any motor assist.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Bingo. It shows that he is a world class athlete, not how he became a world class athlete. It's still interesting though.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Pseudoscience in full glory.
Disposable conclusions.
Pointless.

Yeah your refutation of that study is superb, mr Phd :lol:

signal Dropout.

LMAO believe it.

yeah, i liked that one too.

Guys, here it comes, we're finally about to measure something that is actually of any kind of interest...Count down, 3...2...1....Oh ***!!
Ok, never mind, guys, false alarm...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Bingo. It shows that he is a world class athlete, not how he became a world class athlete. It's still interesting though.

From the GSK website:

"The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab."

Alex...you may wish to tell SKY

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

FWIW.

"No external funding was provided or sought in the preparation and completion of this manuscript."

Are you HIGH?

seriously maybe I'm missing your point but do you think dude is clean?

I understand politics, No problem, this NO FREAKING WAY. No way.

It's sad that the authors even need to indicate that.
If your research was funded, you indicate it e.g. in a footnote. If it wasn't funded, you indicate nothing.

Also, that comment still leaves open the question whether he and GSK got any money from Sky for carrying out the actual tests.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Bingo. It shows that he is a world class athlete, not how he became a world class athlete. It's still interesting though.

From the GSK website:

"The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab."

Alex...you may wish to tell SKY

good spot.
In addition, Froome himself has referred to the tests in several interviews as a direct means to support his claim of cleanliness.
So that is science being abused to mislead the audience. End of.
Now to my knowledge the authors/testers haven't once distanced themselves from that, not a single time. On the contrary, as your link shows.
So that's scientific fraud and deliberate misleading of the audience. Full stop.
Maybe Alex can explain why he is deflecting from that.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Bingo. It shows that he is a world class athlete, not how he became a world class athlete. It's still interesting though.

From the GSK website:

"The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab."

Alex...you may wish to tell SKY

good spot.
In addition, Froome himself has referred to the tests in several interviews as a direct means to support his claim of cleanliness.
So that is science being abused to mislead the audience. End of.
Now to my knowledge the authors/testers haven't once distanced themselves from that, not a single time. On the contrary, as your link shows.
So that's scientific fraud and deliberate misleading of the audience. Full stop.
Maybe Alex can explain why he is deflecting from that.

As you are so sure of yourself perhaps you should accuse the GSK scientists directly ?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Pseudoscience in full glory.
Disposable conclusions.
Pointless.

1. It's not pseudoscience.
2. Not sure what that means but it tells us a TdF winning cyclist has the physiology of a TdF winning cyclist.
3. Perhaps but it seems expectations are only not met if you were expecting such physiological testing to provide insight into something it cannot.

1. Yes it is, objectively. The fact that you deny it suggests you have very low scientific and ethical standards.
In fairness to you and the authors of the article, however, that is par for the course for present-day sports science.
2. It doesn't even tell us that. Well, it misleadingly *claims* it tells us that. But you'll agree that as long as we don't know what illegal substances Froome had in his body, the results of the tests are totally utterly meaningless. The fact that the authors didn't even *try* to control for the doping variable makes this either very sloppy science (assuming they mistakenly forgot about the doping factor), or plain scientific fraud (assuming they do know about the doping factor but decided to just ignore it). Again though, this is par for the course for present day exercise physiology / sports science, with very few exceptions.
3. Please show me *one single person* - other than Chris Froome, Dave B. and Richard Moore - who had any such expectations of the testing.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Once again, such physiological testing will never answer the doping status question. If people have suggested it does/might, well they are wrong and if anyone had such expectations it would, then let's reset them.

Bingo. It shows that he is a world class athlete, not how he became a world class athlete. It's still interesting though.

From the GSK website:

"The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab."

Alex...you may wish to tell SKY

My comment applies equally to anyone that sought or seeks to represent such data/testing in this way.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

good spot.
In addition, Froome himself has referred to the tests in several interviews as a direct means to support his claim of cleanliness.
So that is science being abused to mislead the audience. End of.

Such an action is not the fault of those doing the study / publishing the data. The science stands.
How people then choose to interpret and report on it is an entirely different matter.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

good spot.
In addition, Froome himself has referred to the tests in several interviews as a direct means to support his claim of cleanliness.
So that is science being abused to mislead the audience. End of.

Such an action is not the fault of those doing the study / publishing the data. The science stands.
How people then choose to interpret and report on it is an entirely different matter.

Again you're showing terribly low ethical/scientific standards.
If my science were being abused by third parties in a misleading way, I would seek damages.
Swart and GSK, otoh, have never even for a second tried to distance themselves from Froome's/Moore's misleading statements and reporting.
On the contrary (as gillan's link also shows).

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

good spot.
In addition, Froome himself has referred to the tests in several interviews as a direct means to support his claim of cleanliness.
So that is science being abused to mislead the audience. End of.

Such an action is not the fault of those doing the study / publishing the data. The science stands.
How people then choose to interpret and report on it is an entirely different matter.

Alex

this we know......which is why this study, at this time by these people.....

the results of the study are pretty much irrelevant as they tell us what we already know i.e. the bleedin' obvious..

its all about the interpreting and the reporting.....

and we all know what that is for....or as Moore put it to perhaps its widest audience on Radio 4...."the really interesting bit is the weight loss"

the disappointment is that those with a narrow scientific remit are perhaps blind to the wider 'ecosystem' in which they play a part. Swart being one and his rather 'confused' cheerleader (Burnley?) being another.....

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

1. Yes it is, objectively. The fact that you deny it suggests you have very low scientific and ethical standards.
In fairness to you and the authors of the article, however, that is par for the course for present-day sports science.
2. It doesn't even tell us that. Well, it misleadingly *claims* it tells us that. But you'll agree that as long as we don't know what illegal substances Froome had in his body, the results of the tests are totally utterly meaningless. The fact that the authors didn't even *try* to control for the doping variable makes this either very sloppy science (assuming they mistakenly forgot about the doping factor), or plain scientific fraud (assuming they do know about the doping factor but decided to just ignore it). Again though, this is par for the course for present day exercise physiology / sports science, with very few exceptions.
3. Please show me *one single person* - other than Chris Froome, Dave B. and Richard Moore - who had any such expectations of the testing.

1. Which element(s) of the published study is/are false/pseudo?

2. Physiological testing does only that. Whether or not the subject is doping isn't pertinent to the process of determining VO2max, efficiency, sustainable aerobic power etc. It just tells us what the physiological indicators are, not how they are achieved. It's not haematological (aside from BL) or dope testing. Expecting a physiological test to do what it isn't designed to do is, well, silly. I don't see anywhere in the published study that claims anything about the doping status either way.

3. All I'm doing is reinforcing that such testing can't answer the doping status question either way. The clinic isn't the only place such information is/has been discussed and sometimes misinterpreted.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

good spot.
In addition, Froome himself has referred to the tests in several interviews as a direct means to support his claim of cleanliness.
So that is science being abused to mislead the audience. End of.

Such an action is not the fault of those doing the study / publishing the data. The science stands.
How people then choose to interpret and report on it is an entirely different matter.

Again you're showing terribly low ethical/scientific standards.
If my science were being abused by third parties in a misleading way, I would seek damages.
Swart and GSK, otoh, have never even for a second tried to distance themselves from Froome's/Moore's misleading statements and reporting.
On the contrary (as gillan's link also shows).

Then pray your research never goes through your organisation's PR dept or gets reported on in the media, which by and large does a crap job of reporting on published science, usually in order to find a click bait headline

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
the disappointment is that those with a narrow scientific remit are perhaps blind to the wider 'ecosystem' in which they play a part. Swart being one and his rather 'confused' cheerleader (Burnley?) being another.....

the bold face is very well put, chapeau, even if 'disappointment' is perhaps too strong (I never expected more from Swart, tbh).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Then pray your research never goes through your organisation's PR dept or gets reported on in the media, which by and large does a crap job of reporting on published science, usually in order to find a click bait headline

What Swart/GSK did hasn't got much to do with research in the way I define it.
Or in the way google defines it:

the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions

they haven't established facts (although they falsely claim to), let alone reached new conclusions.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

the results of the study are pretty much irrelevant as they tell us what we already know i.e. the bleedin' obvious..

Well I've already made that precise point.

its all about the interpreting and the reporting.....

and we all know what that is for....or as Moore put it to perhaps its widest audience on Radio 4...."the really interesting bit is the weight loss"

the disappointment is that those with a narrow scientific remit are perhaps blind to the wider 'ecosystem' in which they play a part. Swart being one and his rather 'confused' cheerleader (Burnley?) being another.....

How media/others report on science I agree, it could be much better. That's a global comment as much as one specific to this particular matter. It's a universal problem.

I've not followed everything Swart/Burnley have said, although I've not seen them say anything to suggest this work provides any insight into doping status. I'm hardly a stalker of exercise physiologists though :lol: