The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 95 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
Froome is now posting his training rides on Strava. His max heart rate is now 183bpm which strangely is 20 beats more than when he was attacking at 800w on Ventoux! :confused:

Without prejudice to the Ventoux 2013 and wider doping debate in general.....trying to draw comparisons between a sudden isolated spike in heart rate aligned with a one off big effort within the first hour of an otherwise low intensity January training ride, and heart rate towards the end of a long GT stage ridden in absolute peak summer form? Well that's tenuous at best.

Most people who've ridden a bike and studied how their HR responds at various times during training cycles would, i suspect, think this all looks within the range of normal.
What a way to miss the point; Froome on Ventoux maxed out at 161bpm during is 800w attacks. In his book he claims in max heartrate is 165bpm. Here on a long and steady ride up his first climb he consistently goes to 183bpm. What’s up with that? Either 165bpm is not his max and he used a motor on Ventoux or it’s a very long glitch. None the less Froome has now removed the offending evidence.
 
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
Froome is now posting his training rides on Strava. His max heart rate is now 183bpm which strangely is 20 beats more than when he was attacking at 800w on Ventoux! :confused:

Without prejudice to the Ventoux 2013 and wider doping debate in general.....trying to draw comparisons between a sudden isolated spike in heart rate aligned with a one off big effort within the first hour of an otherwise low intensity January training ride, and heart rate towards the end of a long GT stage ridden in absolute peak summer form? Well that's tenuous at best.

Most people who've ridden a bike and studied how their HR responds at various times during training cycles would, i suspect, think this all looks within the range of normal.
What a way to miss the point; Froome on Ventoux maxed out at 161bpm during is 800w attacks. In his book he claims in max heartrate is 165bpm. Here on a long and steady ride up his first climb he consistently goes to 183bpm. What’s up with that? Either 165bpm is not his max and he used a motor on Ventoux or it’s a very long glitch. None the less Froome has now removed the offending evidence.
I got the intended point entirely. You clearly missed my point which was that HR response to effort will vary massively with conditioning. He doesn't 'consistently' go up to 183. There is just a graphical representation of a one off spike followed by an equally sudden drop. There is no significant length of time whatsoever actually spent above 180. The actual max number due to the well known erratic performance of even the best HR monitors was irrelevant in my thinking.

And tbh i'm surprised he uploaded any HR data in the first place, not in the least bit surprised to see it taken down.

Just because 95% of what Froome does is highly suspicious, doesn't mean that 5% of things he does can't be normal. For me this falls into the 5% normal category.
 
Re:

hazaran said:
Given the HR nosedives, then explodes into the air and he is not even on a particularly hard point (certainly the speed doesn't do anything), congratulations, you have just learned that HR belts occasionally measure bad data.
Whilst i agree entirely with you about the occasional erratic measurements (apparently i hit 230bpm recently, didnt even feel like i was trying :lol: ), the spike does seem to align with the the first and only significant climb of the ride, so im guessing he did put in one big effort on an otherwise controlled zone 2 ride. Wether he actually hit 183 or not is another matter.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
hazaran said:
Given the HR nosedives, then explodes into the air and he is not even on a particularly hard point (certainly the speed doesn't do anything), congratulations, you have just learned that HR belts occasionally measure bad data.
Whilst i agree entirely with you about the occasional erratic measurements (apparently i hit 230bpm recently, didnt even feel like i was trying :lol: ), the spike does seem to align with the the first and only significant climb of the ride, so im guessing he did put in one big effort on an otherwise controlled zone 2 ride. Wether he actually hit 183 or not is another matter.
This is not a spike though. Spikes last mere seconds. This is a consistent uptick to 183 and held for several kilometers.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
brownbobby said:
hazaran said:
Given the HR nosedives, then explodes into the air and he is not even on a particularly hard point (certainly the speed doesn't do anything), congratulations, you have just learned that HR belts occasionally measure bad data.
Whilst i agree entirely with you about the occasional erratic measurements (apparently i hit 230bpm recently, didnt even feel like i was trying :lol: ), the spike does seem to align with the the first and only significant climb of the ride, so im guessing he did put in one big effort on an otherwise controlled zone 2 ride. Wether he actually hit 183 or not is another matter.
This is not a spike though. Spikes last mere seconds. This is a consistent uptick to 183 and held for several kilometers.
You're interpreting the data/graph differently to me, i'm seeing a sudden but fairly linear rise to an absolute max of 183 for mere seconds, followed by an equivalent sudden but linear drop back down to 105ish, Between this rise and fall, there is no 'flat' section at the peak which would represent the peak being held for any length of time whatsoever, let alone several kilometres.
 
Whilst BB has a point, I'd be surprised at such a wide variance of MHR between full condition and off season. I think thehog has a good point... If the Ventoux data is correct and the Strava data is correct, then it doesn't make sense.

However, the assumption that Froome has removed the data because it is suspicious might be false. My friends who are serious TTers never put their data on Strava when training seriously.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
hazaran said:
Given the HR nosedives, then explodes into the air and he is not even on a particularly hard point (certainly the speed doesn't do anything), congratulations, you have just learned that HR belts occasionally measure bad data.
Whilst i agree entirely with you about the occasional erratic measurements (apparently i hit 230bpm recently, didnt even feel like i was trying :lol: ), the spike does seem to align with the the first and only significant climb of the ride, so im guessing he did put in one big effort on an otherwise controlled zone 2 ride. Wether he actually hit 183 or not is another matter.
This is not a spike though. Spikes last mere seconds. This is a consistent uptick to 183 and held for several kilometers.
You're interpreting the data/graph differently to me, i'm seeing a sudden but fairly linear rise to an absolute max of 183 for mere seconds, followed by an equivalent sudden but linear drop back down to 105ish, Between this rise and fall, there is no 'flat' section at the peak which would represent the peak being held for any length of time whatsoever, let alone several kilometres.
Look at the distance. The graph is condensed to appear on a single screen. The “glitch” lasts for 10km with rise in gradient. Prior to that between 20km and 30km it rises in line with an increase in the graidant. A glitch is a sudden spark up then down again over a few seconds, if that.

(apologies for the poor marking up, I did on my phone).

 
Re:

macbindle said:
Whilst BB has a point, I'd be surprised at such a wide variance of MHR between full condition and off season. I think thehog has a good point... If the Ventoux data is correct and the Strava data is correct, then it doesn't make sense.

However, the assumption that Froome has removed the data because it is suspicious might be false. My friends who are serious TTers never put their data on Strava when training seriously.
Agreed, but a very very big IF, which really sums up why i don't see anything to raise suspicions here.

Having recently had the unfortunate experience of sitting for a few hours with a good friend in ICU, i was amazed by what the medical staff considered to be perfectly normal drop outs and short erratic readings from the high tech HR monitors used in this setting.

What hope can there be for absolute accuracy in the £40 plastic belts we wear for cycling?

Whilst useful for tracking general fitness and performance trends, i really do think HR data is one of the least reliable and therefore significant measures we can look at to support suspicions of foul play.
 
The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
hazaran said:
Given the HR nosedives, then explodes into the air and he is not even on a particularly hard point (certainly the speed doesn't do anything), congratulations, you have just learned that HR belts occasionally measure bad data.
Whilst i agree entirely with you about the occasional erratic measurements (apparently i hit 230bpm recently, didnt even feel like i was trying :lol: ), the spike does seem to align with the the first and only significant climb of the ride, so im guessing he did put in one big effort on an otherwise controlled zone 2 ride. Wether he actually hit 183 or not is another matter.
This is not a spike though. Spikes last mere seconds. This is a consistent uptick to 183 and held for several kilometers.
You're interpreting the data/graph differently to me, i'm seeing a sudden but fairly linear rise to an absolute max of 183 for mere seconds, followed by an equivalent sudden but linear drop back down to 105ish, Between this rise and fall, there is no 'flat' section at the peak which would represent the peak being held for any length of time whatsoever, let alone several kilometres.
Look at the distance. The graph is condensed to appear on a single screen. The “glitch” lasts for 10km with rise in gradient. Prior to that between 20km and 30km it rises in line with an increase in the graidant. A glitch is a sudden spark up then down again over a few seconds, if that.

(apologies for the poor marking up, I did on my phone).

I see and understood exactly the section you're referring to and the associated scale, but he is only at 183 for a very short time. He spends several km's rising gradually from 105-183, then immediately starts dropping again 183-105. You would probably say that his average HR in the period/distance you highlight is around 150.

Sorry, maybe we're talking at cross purposes here but i don't know how else to explain my interpretation in words, so maybe this is one of those times when we just have to agree to disagree.
 
thehog said:
The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.
I know this does all sound horribly convenient in the context of the overall suspicion surrounding Froome, but this is one set of excuses i'm ready to accept.

Simply because i and most other people who use HR monitors during rides will know that this is exactly what happens. Especially during high intensity efforts....sweat builds up, belts become damp and lose grip, contact patches are lost, and readings just go haywire. Froome is using exactly the same equipment as us mortals in this regard.

As i said earlier, most things about Froome don't add up. This for me is one of the rare things that do.
 
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.
I know this does all sound horribly convenient in the context of the overall suspicion surrounding Froome, but this is one set of excuses i'm ready to accept.

Simply because i and most other people who use HR monitors during rides will know that this is exactly what happens. Especially during high intensity efforts....sweat builds up, belts become damp and lose grip, contact patches are lost, and readings just go haywire. Froome is using exactly the same equipment as us mortals in this regard.

As i said earlier, most things about Froome don't add up. This for me is one of the rare things that do.
The Ventoux video with heartrate and power transposed doesn’t add up. Period.
 
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.
I know this does all sound horribly convenient in the context of the overall suspicion surrounding Froome, but this is one set of excuses i'm ready to accept.

Simply because i and most other people who use HR monitors during rides will know that this is exactly what happens. Especially during high intensity efforts....sweat builds up, belts become damp and lose grip, contact patches are lost, and readings just go haywire. Froome is using exactly the same equipment as us mortals in this regard.

As i said earlier, most things about Froome don't add up. This for me is one of the rare things that do.
The Ventoux video with heartrate and power transposed doesn’t add up. Period.
On that specifically we agree. That remains one of my favourite sci fi videos :D
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Look at the distance. The graph is condensed to appear on a single screen. The “glitch” lasts for 10km with rise in gradient. Prior to that between 20km and 30km it rises in line with an increase in the graidant. A glitch is a sudden spark up then down again over a few seconds, if that.

(apologies for the poor marking up, I did on my phone).

I find it weird he can go 50 km over a steady climb and descent (kilometers 125 to 175) with no change in heart rate OR speed. Meh.

John Swanson
 
thehog said:
The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.
And as I posted earlier Michelle says that during one of the ITT's in Tour 2013 his HR was at max 167 bpm. The 174 max comes from Kerisson during the infamous Froome "data" for the nuclear PSM stage in Tour 2015 along with the 5.78 W/kg joke. Swart was unable to measure his max heart rate so somehow that Kerisson number 174 keeps coming up. In the famous fax from 2007 before he "lost the fat" his maximal heart rate was noted at 161. So, what we are basically witnessing here is a never-before measured maximum heart rate for Froome, something that we were led to believe it was impossible. Is this Froome? Is this his bike?
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
thehog said:
Look at the distance. The graph is condensed to appear on a single screen. The “glitch” lasts for 10km with rise in gradient. Prior to that between 20km and 30km it rises in line with an increase in the graidant. A glitch is a sudden spark up then down again over a few seconds, if that.

(apologies for the poor marking up, I did on my phone).

I find it weird he can go 50 km over a steady climb and descent (kilometers 125 to 175) with no change in heart rate OR speed. Meh.

John Swanson
Eh??

No change in speed, apart from the constant fluctuations between 20kph and 70kph.

The one effort excluded, this data perfectly aligns with a rider varying speed and cadence in line with terrain changes to try and spend as much time as possible in zone 2. It's a textbook example of a ride you'd expect to see a professional cyclist doing at this time of the year.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
183bpm is not relevant in and of itself. What is relevant is the time accumulated over his alleged Max. Just a measurement error lasting a prolonged time of course. Probably caused by a tailwind too.
Of course, I forgot to factor in the tailwind! :lol:
 
Wouldn't take anything as definitive from a Stages/Garmin HR strap. They spike for a minute or so occasionally. First time I saw it in Training Peaks, mine was spiked at 203bpm one ride for about 30 seconds on a climb & I was convinced I must be ill and stopped training, then it happened again and Garmin & Stages forums are full of people seeing these spikes of 10-20bpm+ above what their known MAX HR usually is and you just ignore it as a HR Strap issue after that. End of the day it's Ant+ or BT transmission sending an electrical signal detection and and it's not always perfect. Take a HR strap and rapidly shake it in your hand and you canget a HR reading lol! It's not that accurate.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Wouldn't take anything as definitive from a Stages/Garmin HR strap. They spike for a minute or so occasionally. First time I saw it in Training Peaks, mine was spiked at 203bpm one ride for about 30 seconds on a climb & I was convinced I must be ill and stopped training, then it happened again and Garmin & Stages forums are full of people seeing these spikes of 10-20bpm+ above what their known MAX HR usually is and you just ignore it as a HR Strap issue after that. End of the day it's Ant+ or BT transmission sending an electrical signal detection and and it's not always perfect. Take a HR strap and rapidly shake it in your hand and you canget a HR reading lol! It's not that accurate.
Don’t be stupid. The leaked Ventoux video came from raw data. Funny how it didn’t have these so called “spikes” for minutes on end. Naturally it was normalized data which Strava also accounts for. I think we can dismiss faulty heartrate readings.
 
It looks like he does 2 intervals starting at 22km into the ride
In the first he goes up to 160bpm over 3k then he brings his hr down over next 3k
The second he goes up to 183bpm over 5k and brings his rate down again over 5k
Then relatively constant for remainder of the ride
 
Just for reference, I looked at the chart Hog posted and added some horizontal lines to help provide some relative visual cues.

Two pink lines to show the minimum and maximum HR values reported (63bpm and 183bpm), and a blue line at 170bpm using the chart scale to the nearest pixel I could draw.

 
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Just for reference, I looked at the chart Hog posted and added some horizontal lines to help provide some relative visual cues.

Two pink lines to show the minimum and maximum HR values reported (63bpm and 183bpm), and a blue line at 170bpm using the chart scale to the nearest pixel I could draw.

i think the issue being that the 'blip' if its a blip...fits exactly with the increase and decrease of heart rate below it...not at some point during the long period at 150bpm for example.....the blip therefore would appear to last for the length of time of that longer cycle which would suggest its not a blip at all.....

as users of these things will know...there are variations but not usually by this much and if there were you would probably junk the ones which gave you crazy readings in favour of ones closer to the 'real' data readings....especially if you had access to as many models as you wanted and/or your budget was the size of froomes/sky

which is of course why when he asks what more he could do, before getting Swart to give him a one off test...he could publish data all his training data.....we know that there'll be anomalies...we can work with that....which of course...would appear to be the problem ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS