- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
It's hard to judge because even though he is skinny he looks so veiny and pumped up. You can compare him to less emaciated looking Andy Schleck at the same height who weighted 68 kg when he was in his peak shape. That's only 1 kilo more than Froome in his peak shape.
thehog said:Poursuivant said:
It was 84 which they estimated 88 at Tour de France racing weight of 67kg.
If you take what we all think his weight is of 64-65kg then Froome would have a V02 max of 95+!
It's hard to judge because even though he is skinny he looks so veiny and pumped up. You can compare him to less emaciated looking Andy Schleck at the same height who weighted 68 kg when he was in his peak shape. That's only 1 kilo more than Froome in his peak shape.
So his Vo2max number went up 4 during the TDF or right before it? I know that numbers either drop, depending on weight, age, etc so an athlete's Vo2max increasing during a short period of time isn't unusual, particularly after losing a little bit of weight, but 4 points??!?
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
BullsFan22 said:
According to the data he peaked at age 22 in 2007. Lost 6kg of fat which turned him into superman overnight from Poland to Vuelta.
That's not adding up. He has made no physical physiological gains in that time period other than weight loss?
I trust the 2007 data as real, something is not right after matching up those numbers. There's no change in his power output from 22 to 31 years of age?
So in 2007 someone said you have the makings to be one of the greratest cyclists of all time. All you need to do is lose 10 kilos. Why did it take 4 years to lose the weight? I mean if I was told that at the age of 22 I think I could have knocked that out in a couple months.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
The oracle of the clinic- Merckx Index is currently facing some login issue so he asked me to make 2 points.
1 the 8 kg weight loss they are claiming is responsible for his performance improvement would have had to occur between Poland and the Vuelta.
2 ihcrc, in the Kimmage interview a couple of years ago, Froome said his weight pre-Sky was around 71-72 kg, not 75-76.
1 the 8 kg weight loss they are claiming is responsible for his performance improvement would have had to occur between Poland and the Vuelta.
2 ihcrc, in the Kimmage interview a couple of years ago, Froome said his weight pre-Sky was around 71-72 kg, not 75-76.
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
From Merckx Index, who collated a well constructed post as ever, he couldn't post this time around but will be back in good time
To the data points;
The first column is 2007 data points, the second 2015:
Peak Power: 540/525
Sustained Power: 420/419
Utilization: 77.8%/79.8%
Weight: 75.6.67.0*
W/kg: 5.56/6.25*
V02max: 6.063/5.913
V02max/kg: 80.2/88.2
efficiency: 25%/25.5%
*estimated TDF weight, actual weight was 69.9 kg.; the actual W/kg was likewise 5.99, the 6.25 assumes 67.0 kg.
Some comments:
1) efficiency is determined from Alex's 80% graphs; he posted 85 and 90%, both of those are the wrong ones to use, as the article indicates his utilization is about 80%.
2) V02max refers to total, not per body weight, and is in liters
3 A peak power loss of < 3%, and essentially no sustained power loss, accompanying a weight loss of > 10%. And most/all of this had to occur between Poland and the Vuelta, something the Esquire article of course did not mention
4) The efficiency is quite high, particularly in association with such a high V02max. I have to go look at the literature again, but this is extremely rare if not unprecedented.
5) Didn't he say in the Kimmage interview that he weighed 71-72 kg back in the early days? I don't remember any value as high as 75-76kg (Comfirmed, he said 71-72kg at Barloworld 2008 in Kimmage interview).
6) What happened to the Madone climb, when he claimed to put out about 6.9 W/kg?! His V02max indicates he would have to have weighed < 61 kg!
To the data points;
The first column is 2007 data points, the second 2015:
Peak Power: 540/525
Sustained Power: 420/419
Utilization: 77.8%/79.8%
Weight: 75.6.67.0*
W/kg: 5.56/6.25*
V02max: 6.063/5.913
V02max/kg: 80.2/88.2
efficiency: 25%/25.5%
*estimated TDF weight, actual weight was 69.9 kg.; the actual W/kg was likewise 5.99, the 6.25 assumes 67.0 kg.
Some comments:
1) efficiency is determined from Alex's 80% graphs; he posted 85 and 90%, both of those are the wrong ones to use, as the article indicates his utilization is about 80%.
2) V02max refers to total, not per body weight, and is in liters
3 A peak power loss of < 3%, and essentially no sustained power loss, accompanying a weight loss of > 10%. And most/all of this had to occur between Poland and the Vuelta, something the Esquire article of course did not mention
4) The efficiency is quite high, particularly in association with such a high V02max. I have to go look at the literature again, but this is extremely rare if not unprecedented.
5) Didn't he say in the Kimmage interview that he weighed 71-72 kg back in the early days? I don't remember any value as high as 75-76kg (Comfirmed, he said 71-72kg at Barloworld 2008 in Kimmage interview).
6) What happened to the Madone climb, when he claimed to put out about 6.9 W/kg?! His V02max indicates he would have to have weighed < 61 kg!
"Chris's peak power is 525 watts, which corresponds to 7.51w/kg: a massive figure,” sports physician and exercise physiologist at the University of Cape Town Jeroen Swart said. "But the interesting thing is that the [sustained] figure of 6w/kg — which is basically what he produced in the lab — is 79.8 per cent of his peak power. That's a completely reasonable percentage."
Can anybody tell me how his maximum peak power can be 525 watts when it was above 600 watts in the leaked video?
Can anybody tell me how his maximum peak power can be 525 watts when it was above 600 watts in the leaked video?
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
thehog said:From Merckx Index, who collated a well constructed post as ever, he couldn't post this time around but will be back in good time
To the data points;
The first column is 2007 data points, the second 2015:
Peak Power: 540/525
Sustained Power: 420/419
Utilization: 77.8%/79.8%
Weight: 75.6.67.0*
W/kg: 5.56/6.25*
V02max: 6.063/5.913
V02max/kg: 80.2/88.2
efficiency: 25%/25.5%
*estimated TDF weight, actual weight was 69.9 kg.; the actual W/kg was likewise 5.99, the 6.25 assumes 67.0 kg.
Some comments:
1) efficiency is determined from Alex's 80% graphs; he posted 85 and 90%, both of those are the wrong ones to use, as the article indicates his utilization is about 80%.
2) V02max refers to total, not per body weight, and is in liters
3 A peak power loss of < 3%, and essentially no sustained power loss, accompanying a weight loss of > 10%. And most/all of this had to occur between Poland and the Vuelta, something the Esquire article of course did not mention
4) The efficiency is quite high, particularly in association with such a high V02max. I have to go look at the literature again, but this is extremely rare if not unprecedented.
5) Didn't he say in the Kimmage interview that he weighed 71-72 kg back in the early days? I don't remember any value as high as 75-76kg (Comfirmed, he said 71-72kg at Barloworld 2008 in Kimmage interview).
6) What happened to the Madone climb, when he claimed to put out about 6.9 W/kg?! His V02max indicates he would have to have weighed < 61 kg!
A little more from MI:
To give Froome the most benefit of the doubt, let’s assume it was 71 kg, and his V02max and power had dropped slightly to what it’s reported to be now. He would then have a V02max/kg of 83.3, and sustainable power of 5.90 W/kg. This is close to what Quintana put out on PSM in the past TDF. And this is at Barloworld.!
Also worth noting that at that weight and same power, his TTng ability would have to be very close to what it has been post-2011. Again, this is at Barloworld!
and from the Kimmage interview:
MI: So 66 kg, not 67. That pushes the V02max.kg up to 89.6, and the sustainable power to 6.35 W/kg
So in the better part of a decade, and despite Sky's superior training and nutrition technology (ahem ) the guy has not increased his FTP a single watt?
Really?
WTF is going on over there, Sir Dave? He is no stronger now than when he was a neo-pro?
Either way, 420 w/ftp is seriously strong. Wow.
Of course, for someone who spend the majority of their time staring at their Garmin/SRM, riding to power would be second nature. Whats the possibility that he simply rode to a "reasonable" power number during the step test, and then gave up the ghost early?
) the guy has not increased his FTP a single watt?Really?
WTF is going on over there, Sir Dave? He is no stronger now than when he was a neo-pro?
Either way, 420 w/ftp is seriously strong. Wow.
Of course, for someone who spend the majority of their time staring at their Garmin/SRM, riding to power would be second nature. Whats the possibility that he simply rode to a "reasonable" power number during the step test, and then gave up the ghost early?
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,649
- 8,565
- 28,180
Re:
He self reported 66 kg at (I think) Romandie this year, claiming also that he had more to lose. Of course 67 is BS.
PremierAndrew said:
He self reported 66 kg at (I think) Romandie this year, claiming also that he had more to lose. Of course 67 is BS.
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
He got down to 69kg when he first joined Sky but was still pushing sprinters. So even when he got from his reported 76kg in 2007 to 69kg at Sky he couldn't use the big engine?
The big engine only kicked in after Poland in the space of 3 weeks dropping another 3kg's!
red_flanders said:
He got down to 69kg when he first joined Sky but was still pushing sprinters. So even when he got from his reported 76kg in 2007 to 69kg at Sky he couldn't use the big engine?
The big engine only kicked in after Poland in the space of 3 weeks dropping another 3kg's!
- Mar 10, 2009
- 2,973
- 5
- 11,485
His absolute VO2max is measured in litres per min, then normalised to body weight and expressed in units of ml/kg/min, which is the 84, 88 values etc that you commonly read for VO2max results.BullsFan22 said:
So if you lose weight and have same absolute VO2max (nothing overly unusual with that), then your absolute VO2max remains the same while relative VO2max goes up.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 2,973
- 5
- 11,485
Re: Re:
I have the same public info you do so can't say specifically but I presume it would be as others have mentioned, a pretty typical step test with the power demand going up at specified intervals while measuring gas exchange data.thehog said:
Let's see if I can post again...
The efficiencies were estimated using Alex's curves, but there is a formula that the curves are derived from that can be used to calculate exact values. I apparently underestimated the values from the curves. By the formula, the efficiencies are 26.5% for 2015, and 25.6% for 2007. These are indeed unusually high values, and though I can't access all the relevant literature--Coggan would probably know--i don't think anyone with a V02max value this high has ever been reported to have an efficiency this high. Though in fairness, most elite cyclists have never published this kind of information (though some have, albeit anonymously, which for our purposes here, is just as good).
Anyway, from the studies I've seen, the highest published product of V02max x GME is about 0.202. Froome's is 88.2 x .265 = 0.234. About 15% higher than the highest published. Keep in mind that V02max x GME is two-thirds of the formula for power, the remaining number being utilization (the rest of the formula involves fixed numbers, at any rate numbers the same for all riders, generally). Froome's value for that, however, about 80%, is not exceptionally high, a very high value would be about 90%. Still, if you throw that in, Froome's product is 0.0187. Assuming the rider with the highest published product had a utilization of 90%, his product would be 0.0182. This would be the best case scenario for anyone with published values (even anonymously) AFAIK. So by the physiological parameters, Froome is one of the strongest riders ever.
I don't have a problem with this, per se. The problem, of course, is that by his own testimony, he weighed 70-71 kg way back at Barloworld, which means he would have been very close to being at this unworldly level even then. Indeed, for the August test, he was basically at the same weight, 70 kg, and had a V02max/kg of just a shade under 6.0 W/kg. Even without the weight loss down to 67 kg, that value would put him at the top of the peloton. So at Barloworld, collating his own records and testimony, he was every bit as good as he was this August.
Up to a point. Froome is claiming he lost > 10% of his body weight, with < 3% loss of peak power, and essentially no loss of sustained power. That would be very suspicious for anyone who was already a fit pro. We're not talking about some weekend warrior who starts riding and sheds weight.
Except that it apparently is not the case. As posted before, he told Kimmage he was at 70-71 kg at Barloworld. Quite frankly, this 75-76 kg value looks like a story used to explain how he could increase his power/weight so much. If it's really true, he needs to explain why he told Kimmage something very different.
There is also the fact that the report that just came out is using 67 kg, when Froome again told Kimmage something different, 66 kg. That's not a big deal, perhaps, but assuming this V02max stays the same, his V02max/kg now rises to nearly 90, and his power to 6.35 W/kg.
The efficiencies were estimated using Alex's curves, but there is a formula that the curves are derived from that can be used to calculate exact values. I apparently underestimated the values from the curves. By the formula, the efficiencies are 26.5% for 2015, and 25.6% for 2007. These are indeed unusually high values, and though I can't access all the relevant literature--Coggan would probably know--i don't think anyone with a V02max value this high has ever been reported to have an efficiency this high. Though in fairness, most elite cyclists have never published this kind of information (though some have, albeit anonymously, which for our purposes here, is just as good).
Anyway, from the studies I've seen, the highest published product of V02max x GME is about 0.202. Froome's is 88.2 x .265 = 0.234. About 15% higher than the highest published. Keep in mind that V02max x GME is two-thirds of the formula for power, the remaining number being utilization (the rest of the formula involves fixed numbers, at any rate numbers the same for all riders, generally). Froome's value for that, however, about 80%, is not exceptionally high, a very high value would be about 90%. Still, if you throw that in, Froome's product is 0.0187. Assuming the rider with the highest published product had a utilization of 90%, his product would be 0.0182. This would be the best case scenario for anyone with published values (even anonymously) AFAIK. So by the physiological parameters, Froome is one of the strongest riders ever.
I don't have a problem with this, per se. The problem, of course, is that by his own testimony, he weighed 70-71 kg way back at Barloworld, which means he would have been very close to being at this unworldly level even then. Indeed, for the August test, he was basically at the same weight, 70 kg, and had a V02max/kg of just a shade under 6.0 W/kg. Even without the weight loss down to 67 kg, that value would put him at the top of the peloton. So at Barloworld, collating his own records and testimony, he was every bit as good as he was this August.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Up to a point. Froome is claiming he lost > 10% of his body weight, with < 3% loss of peak power, and essentially no loss of sustained power. That would be very suspicious for anyone who was already a fit pro. We're not talking about some weekend warrior who starts riding and sheds weight.
Except that it apparently is not the case. As posted before, he told Kimmage he was at 70-71 kg at Barloworld. Quite frankly, this 75-76 kg value looks like a story used to explain how he could increase his power/weight so much. If it's really true, he needs to explain why he told Kimmage something very different.
There is also the fact that the report that just came out is using 67 kg, when Froome again told Kimmage something different, 66 kg. That's not a big deal, perhaps, but assuming this V02max stays the same, his V02max/kg now rises to nearly 90, and his power to 6.35 W/kg.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Anyone remember the conjecture re: weight Armstrong unleashed via the Coyle study?
Echoes from another generation IMO.
Echoes from another generation IMO.
Jeroen Swart @JeroenSwart · 1 hr1 hour ago
@Scienceofsport larger data set will be on the @GSK_HPL website after 10am today. Then the full data set in the journal paper.
@Scienceofsport larger data set will be on the @GSK_HPL website after 10am today. Then the full data set in the journal paper.
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
Looking at this data Berto will have no issues beating the Fromster next year, as long as he reaches top form
So basically he was always an elite talent who through a combination of being a bit of a chubster, struggling with his health (Bilharzia) and initially very poor bike handling ability was unable to show his true self until the 2011 Vuelta.
We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.
We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Latest posts
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread- Latest: Karl Merckx
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram