The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

Gesink, showing Swart/GSK how not to have heart rate strap slip off, double wrap.

Rookie error by the GSK crew on Froome :lol:

The "rookie error" is seeing a picture of someone with a standard 12 lead ECG set-up and assuming that the two black bands are heart rate monitor straps.

Yes, I know what I see banned member; what I like is the the secure nature of the of the strap.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Why do you care about HR data? It's a couple of orders of magnitude less important than the stuff that was recorded and actually matters.

Are you that boring that you think eveything evolves around what you think?

We'all take hearrate whether you like it or not. We do not care what you think.

Why do you avoid the question? Why are you so interested in HR?

 

[acoggan]

Gesink, showing Swart/GSK how not to have heart rate strap slip off, double wrap.

Rookie error by the GSK crew on Froome :lol:

The "rookie error" is seeing a picture of someone with a standard 12 lead ECG set-up and assuming that the two black bands are heart rate monitor straps.

Yes, I know what I see banned member; what I like is the the secure nature of the of the strap.

If anything I would be concerned that one of those black straps might move and dislodge one of the ECG electrodes, thus preventing measurement of heart rate and (under AHA/ACSM guidelines for cardiac stress testing) requiring that the test be terminated.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Why are you so interested in HR?

Let's see.
Basically everybody interested in cycling, Froome and doping was interested in Froome's heart rate in 2015:
https://cyclingtips.com/2015/07/froomes-ventoux-data-leak-analysed/
Look at the comment section, it's basically only about the heart rate.
The heart rate discussion was in fact one of the main triggers for the testing to be done.

So let's reverse the question: why would anybody NOT be interested in the heart rate?

And while the missed heart rate might be a red herring, it's just another indication that the investigators were never interested in the doping question, even though according to Froome and the Esquire/Moore article the testing really was just about that.

And with the whole cycling world watching, as veganrob said, you do have to wonder how you can screw up like that.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Basically everybody interested in cycling, Froome and doping was interested in Froome's heart rate in 2015:
https://cyclingtips.com/2015/07/froomes-ventoux-data-leak-analysed/
Look at the comment section, it's basically only about the heart rate.

Lots of people follow stupid reality TV shows as well. Doesn't mean they have any substance or impart information of value or relevance. Lots of people follow and talk endlessly about Justin Bieber or the Kardashians. Does that imply the topic matters?

If lots of people make lots of ill informed comments about the importance or relevance of HR, that just tells me there are lots of ill informed people, not that what they are talking about is relevant or important.

let's reverse the question: why would anybody NOT be interested in the heart rate?

Because it tells us nothing relevant about his performance.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Why do you care about HR data? It's a couple of orders of magnitude less important than the stuff that was recorded and actually matters.

Are you that boring that you think eveything evolves around what you think?

We'all take hearrate whether you like it or not. We do not care what you think.

Why do you avoid the question? Why are you so interested in HR?

Better question might be " why is HR part of the process then" . Or does it only become a non issue when Swart neglects to put a HR strap on properly?
The lengths you guys will go to to protect one of your own does not make you look good

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Why do you care about HR data? It's a couple of orders of magnitude less important than the stuff that was recorded and actually matters.

Are you that boring that you think eveything evolves around what you think?

We'all take hearrate whether you like it or not. We do not care what you think.

Why do you avoid the question? Why are you so interested in HR?

Better question might be " why is HR part of the process then" . Or does it only become a non issue when Swart neglects to put a HR strap on properly?

indeed, and why is HR being measured by Team Sky themselves (to my knowledge) in (almost) every race for (almost) every rider and even in training they work with heart rate monitors?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Why do you care about HR data? It's a couple of orders of magnitude less important than the stuff that was recorded and actually matters.

So you make the rules around here on what one can & can't mention? I get the sense by your instantaneous reaction the 'obsession' is on your side. Perhaps calm down a little, it's an Internet forum, not a Pauline Hanson convention.

 

[sniper]

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

why would anybody NOT be interested in the heart rate?

Because they understand physiology.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

Sustainable power is a function of VO2max, lactate threshold, and efficiency.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

why is HR being measured by Team Sky themselves (to my knowledge) in (almost) every race for (almost) every rider and even in training they work with heart rate monitors?

Because despite what they may claim, Team Sky is still very much "old school."

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

Sustainable power is a function of VO2max, lactate threshold, and efficiency.

Indeed.
And since you understand physiology, you also know that sustainable power correlates with (blood) doping, something the researchers sadly didn't even try to test for, giving rise to a set of disposable results.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

why would anybody NOT be interested in the heart rate?

Because they understand physiology.

i'm afraid you missed the point as to why there was so much talk about his heart rate.
it had little to do with physiology.
more with motor technology.

 

[sniper]

why would anybody NOT be interested in the heart rate?

Because they understand physiology.

You're basically saying Team Sky and other 'science oriented' proteams like Garmin *don't* understand physiology.
Good to have that on record.

why is HR being measured by Team Sky themselves (to my knowledge) in (almost) every race for (almost) every rider and even in training they work with heart rate monitors?

Because despite what they may claim, Team Sky is still very much "old school."

That's fine, but that sort of goes against what Jeroen Swart said the other day about Sky being at the cutting edge of sports science.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Why do you care about HR data? It's a couple of orders of magnitude less important than the stuff that was recorded and actually matters.

Are you that boring that you think eveything evolves around what you think?

We'all take hearrate whether you like it or not. We do not care what you think.

Why do you avoid the question? Why are you so interested in HR?

Better question might be " why is HR part of the process then" . Or does it only become a non issue when Swart neglects to put a HR strap on properly?

Who knows? Maybe to satisfy the curiosity of the people that seem to be interested in irrelevant information and don't have an understanding of exercise physiology.

But that is the question I am asking those here that think the loss of HR data is something relevant or important to conducting a physiological test to ascertain the factors underpinning a rider's sustainable power capabilities,

No one yet has bothered to answer the basic question. Presumably because no one can come up with a sound, physiologically plausible reason for caring about the HR data.

The lengths you guys will go to to protect one of your own does not make you look good

You guys? Not sure who you mean.

I'm not protecting anyone. All I am pointing out is the triviality of the HR data, and fail to understand why so much is being made of the loss of such trivial and irrelevant data.

Now if the blood lactate data, or the power data, or the gas exchange data were compromised during the testing then that does have a material impact on blood lactate and VO2max testing, and the ability to then determine lactate threshold, VO2max and efficiency. If that happened then the test would be aborted. Losing HR data? Meh, so what? It informs us of nothing to do with his performance nor the factors that influence it.

So I ask again, why are people here so concerned about irrelevant/trivial data?

 

[thehog]

Re:

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

You know, the scientific stuff like "he just lost the fat" - lol! :razz:

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Why do you care about HR data? It's a couple of orders of magnitude less important than the stuff that was recorded and actually matters.

So you make the rules around here on what one can & can't mention? I get the sense by your instantaneous reaction the 'obsession' is on your side. Perhaps calm down a little, it's an Internet forum, not a Pauline Hanson convention.

I've never asked anyone to not mention HR.

But when they do why are there rules about pointing out its irrelevance / triviality?
Do you make the rules on what one can/cannot comment on?

Not sure what Hanson has to do with it. As for calmness, couldn't be calmer. Just asking a question so that I understand why people are interested in the irrelevant/trivial.

 

[sniper]

No one yet has bothered to answer the basic question. Presumably because no one can come up with a sound, physiologically plausible reason for caring about the HR data.

I'm afraid you totally missed the point (despite this having been spelled out multiple times) as to why there was so much talk about his heart rate.
it had little to do with physiology.
more with motor technology.
something you as an exercise physiologist should be massively concerned about.
Together with old school doping, it's another variable you can't - and funnily enough don't seem to want to - control for, but which in reality nullifies the legitimacy of your research.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

why would anybody NOT be interested in the heart rate?

Because they understand physiology.

i'm afraid you missed the point as to why there was so much talk about his heart rate.
it had little to do with physiology.
more with motor technology.

Which would imply a performance component that HR data still would not explain.

OK, let's play the "what if" game, for a bit of fun...

What if a rider had a motor during a performance test and used it. It wouldn't influence their gas exchange data, nor their blood lactate data, nor the power output data (measurement of power output is independent of the source of power).

But the results of a power source other than the rider would show an efficiency level outside of the normal range, and possibly an improbable variability in efficiency (depending on how such external power was applied). In the case of Froome's test, the measured efficiency was in the normal range (23% at ambient conditions) and not improbably variable. HR data is still irrelevant in this context.

So since the data tell us there was no motor in testing, then all it told us is that he has the underlying physiological capabilities to win the TdF without one.

As for doping, physiological tests (i.e. lactate threshold, VO2max) cannot and never will provide information about a rider's doping status. If some have had or created false expectations about that otherwise, well I can't help that. All I'm doing is to correct that misapprehension.

 

[sniper]

thanks for expanding, that's fair enough.
However, i don't think anybody suspects Froome to have had a motor during the tests.
The suspicions of motorization clearly concerned his 2013 Ventoux climb.
And so the interesting thing would have been to be able to compare his max HR from the tests (no motor) with his HR from the leaked Ventoux file (suspected motor).

I'm not saying it would have been easy or straightforward to draw any conclusions from that comparison.
But it would at the very least have been interesting and potentially relevant.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

thanks for expanding, that's fair enough.
However, i don't think anybody suspects Froome to have had a motor during the tests.

It was asked in this very thread in case you'd forgotten:
viewtopic.php?p=1999609#p1999609

At the time I pointed out the issue with impact of efficiency measure but I had also forgotten they were recording power at both the ergometer and at the crank arm - so any extra power due to an external power supply such as an internal motor would have shown up at the ergo and not at the crank arm. It didn't.

The suspicions of motorization clearly concerned his 2013 Ventoux climb.
And so the interesting thing would have been to be able to compare his max HR from the tests (no motor) with his HR from the leaked Ventoux file (suspected motor).

I'm not saying it would have been easy or straightforward to draw any conclusions from that comparison.
But it would at the very least have been interesting and potentially relevant.

Finding a motor would be interesting.

Not sure the HR data tells us much of interest (for all the physiological reasons that make it difficult to infer much at all from it).

But for those that seem to care about it or be interested, all of the HR data from the lactate threshold tests was collected /reported, it was only the VO2max test for which the HR signal was lost. No one seems to have suggested the complete HR data is not consistent with the "leaked" climbing data.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

You know, the scientific stuff like "he just lost the fat" - lol! :razz:

Oh, and the 2007 fax, that proved "he just lost the fat" :surprised:

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

You know, the scientific stuff like "he just lost the fat" - lol! :razz:

Oh, and the 2007 fax, that proved "he just lost the fat" :surprised:

the Fax is of course the real elephant in the room.
you didn't have to look long at it to see it was a fraud, forged, faked, fabricated.
yet still there are people taking this whole exercise seriously, as opposed to going after Froome, Cound and Moore for insulting and defrauding both the scientific and cycling community with that Fax.
As for Swart, the way he dismissed all the obvious issues with Fax, for me that was a big red flag.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What actually was "the stuff that matters" that was recorded?

You know, the scientific stuff like "he just lost the fat" - lol! :razz:

Oh, and the 2007 fax, that proved "he just lost the fat" :surprised:

the Fax is of course the real elephant in the room.
you didn't have to look long at it to see it was a fraud, forged, faked, fabricated.
yet still there are people taking this whole exercise seriously, as opposed to going after Froome, Cound and Moore for insulting and defrauding both the scientific and cycling community with that Fax.
As for Swart, the way he dismissed all the obvious issues with Fax, for me that was a big red flag.

Agreed, the fax is Froome's jiffy bag, no one knows how it came about. Swart is no dummy, not including it in his final report made sense otherwise the ridicule scale would have went off the charts. Even more so after the "he just lost the fat" quote which is now etched in stone.

It's makes you wonder how bright, seemingly intelligent people are willing to accept that paltry looking fax as the real deal. I guess that's why tertiary educated people drink diet sodas believing that is it good for them? Who's knows?