The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

Lyon

Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
JRanton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Riis is the blueprint for Froome, as he was for Armstrong.
Only, the Riis camp wasn't clever enough to involve a real scientist, a scientist who, having said yes to participate in a study, is obligated to reach a conclusion, a conclusion which we, the laymen, cannot criticize, since we are not scientists. Scientists are ever the useful idiots and now Sky, for it is Sky, have proven that Froome is clean.
 
B

buckle

Jul 23, 2012
1,139
5
10,495
Timing is everything. Coming off the back of the Russians and Radcliffe, Froome's handlers know that speculation has increased once more about all sports hence the release of data. If Radcliffe can be proclaimed clean then so can Froome. They are too big to fail (unlike the Russians).
 
J

JRanton

Apr 2, 2010
5,266
442
18,580
Lyon said:
JRanton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Riis is the blueprint for Froome, as he was for Armstrong.
Only, the Riis camp wasn't clever enough to involve a real scientist, a scientist who, having said yes to participate in a study, is obligated to reach a conclusion, a conclusion which we, the laymen, cannot criticize, since we are not scientists. Scientists are ever the useful idiots and now Sky, for it is Sky, have proven that Froome is clean.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being sarcastic. The 2007 test results make the Froome story fit together. The French coach said they were exceptional and they were.
 
B

Bumeington

May 8, 2009
837
0
0
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Updated with Froome's numbers for 20-40-min power and VO2max, as per cyclingnews article linked below:

FTP_VO2_GME%2090%20Froome_zpsplkulxu6.jpg


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-physiological-test-data-released/
Click to expand...

It suggests in the article that his fractional VO2 utilization is 80% rather than 90% - meaning a higher efficiency?
 
Alex Simmons/RST

Alex Simmons/RST

Mar 10, 2009
2,973
5
11,485
Re: Re:

Bumeington said:
It suggests in the article that his fractional VO2 utilization is 80% rather than 90% - meaning a higher efficiency?
Click to expand...
I didn't see that value in the article.

It says his sustainable power of 6W/kg is 79.8% of his peak power output. That's a completely different ratio.

It also depends on the workload increase protocol used for the VO2max test. e.g. if it was a MAP test format (e.g. 20W/min), then FTP:MAP ratio is typically 72-77%. If the protocol was longer duration steps / lower rate of increase in workload (which is more likely for a standard VO2max test), then the ratio would be higher, which is in line with the ratio reported.

Having a fractional VO2max utilisation of 80% for mean maximal power in the 20-40-min range indicates being under trained for a rider of this calibre. Heck it's likely to represent being under trained for me. At peak fitness as a masters aged (45) paracycling C4 rider (transtibial amputation) my fractional VO2max utilisation for 30-minutes was ~88%.
 
R

robin440

Jun 22, 2015
466
0
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
Let's see if I can post again...


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.

.
Click to expand...
You only lose power when you lose muscle mass, isn't it like this? If froome lost this fat slowly, he shouldnt have lost any muscles?!
I lost 10 kg fat a couple of years ago while a was alredy fit and after a couple of months, when i lost that fat, the numbers stayed pretty much the same. But i am of course a weekend warrior and not froome!
 
W

wansteadimp

Mar 20, 2013
801
262
10,380
JRanton said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is still the question of why this polish was applied in a such a short period between the Polish event and the Vuelta, a race he wasn't supposed to race.
 
Alex Simmons/RST

Alex Simmons/RST

Mar 10, 2009
2,973
5
11,485
Re:

TailWindHome said:
https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/ChrisFroome-BodyCompositionandAerobicPhysiology.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks.

So 30W/min ramp for max test with PPO being final peak 30-second average power. That makes it tricky to compare with typical FTP:MAP ratios as MAP uses a slower ramp and is average of final minute and of course they are referring to a sustainable power in the 20-40-minutes range which will be a bit higher than FTP. Hence comparing two values that would be higher than both FTP and MAP making any real comparison with FTP:MAP ratio a bit pointless.
 
King Boonen

King Boonen

Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,970
25,680
Thanks to the guys who answered my question. Seems that there is only one result that links efficiency and VO2max inversely so I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
 
R

Rouleur

Mar 10, 2009
13
0
0
Re:

Joelsim said:
His 75.6 Kg weight was as tested in Switzerland in 2007, not his racing weight at Barloworld (as per PK discussion).
Click to expand...

In which case, and as Alex alluded too, why was he being dropped on climbs in the 2008-2011 period despite his race weight and threshold power apparently not being much different to what it is now. Even at 71kg he would be at 5.9 W/kg on climbs so why wasn't he up there in summit finishes and TT's.

A lot doesn't add up.
 
D

dwyatt

Jul 8, 2009
162
0
0
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Looking at this data Berto will have no issues beating the Fromster next year, as long as he reaches top form :)
Click to expand...

He can beat anyone if he could just find his early career "form"
 
J

Joelsim

Mar 13, 2015
420
10,024
9,980
Re: Re:

Rouleur said:
Joelsim said:
His 75.6 Kg weight was as tested in Switzerland in 2007, not his racing weight at Barloworld (as per PK discussion).
Click to expand...

In which case, and as Alex alluded too, why was he being dropped on climbs in the 2008-2011 period despite his race weight and threshold power apparently not being much different to what it is now. Even at 71kg he would be at 5.9 W/kg on climbs so why wasn't he up there in summit finishes and TT's.

A lot doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Well he beat Wiggo in the 2009 Worlds ITT.

And then there's the minor point of him working as a dom and hence being in the wind all day.

And maybe even take into account the Bilharzia. Either the 2009 'unpolished diamond' comments from Sky were one massive 'future planning' shenanigan, just Froome rather than G or others, or he really had bags of potential on Sky's internal testing...and it wasn't happening...so they sent him for full medical testing to find out why not.

It's perfectly credible if you are not scratching around looking for justification of your own views.
 
LaFlorecita

LaFlorecita

May 15, 2011
45,171
617
24,680
Re: Re:

Joelsim said:
Rouleur said:
Joelsim said:
His 75.6 Kg weight was as tested in Switzerland in 2007, not his racing weight at Barloworld (as per PK discussion).
Click to expand...

In which case, and as Alex alluded too, why was he being dropped on climbs in the 2008-2011 period despite his race weight and threshold power apparently not being much different to what it is now. Even at 71kg he would be at 5.9 W/kg on climbs so why wasn't he up there in summit finishes and TT's.

A lot doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Well he beat Wiggo in the 2009 Worlds ITT.

And then there's the minor point of him working as a dom and hence being in the wind all day.

It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Joel young domestiques show talent and skills too if they have them :(
 
G

gillan1969

Aug 12, 2009
2,814
110
11,680
Re: Re:

Joelsim said:
Rouleur said:
Joelsim said:
His 75.6 Kg weight was as tested in Switzerland in 2007, not his racing weight at Barloworld (as per PK discussion).
Click to expand...

In which case, and as Alex alluded too, why was he being dropped on climbs in the 2008-2011 period despite his race weight and threshold power apparently not being much different to what it is now. Even at 71kg he would be at 5.9 W/kg on climbs so why wasn't he up there in summit finishes and TT's.

A lot doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Well he beat Wiggo in the 2009 Worlds ITT.

And then there's the minor point of him working as a dom and hence being in the wind all day.

It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

yup a minute down on dave McCann...a man, and no disrespect, who neither has a belgian fan club or would be recognised if he rocked up at an italian amatuer cycling club ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom