The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 53 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re: Re:

poupou said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...
That is the same kind of articles.

Froome had recorded the best results..... of course but referring to what? to who?

Well, VO2 is specifically mentioned (I don't have to be able to read French to see that), and the translation at least implies that it was one of the highest measured at the Center.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

Thank you!! I knew I wasn't imaging things.
 
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

Thank you!! I knew I wasn't imaging things.

No worries, I remember definitely seeing it.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

Thank you!! I knew I wasn't imaging things.
Took them 8 years to remember 'a talent like Bernard Hinault', Hinault, who they had never tested.

Very scientific.

<shrug>

Rich for the win...
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html
Not sure if your translation is correct, so I give my interpretation of
Joint par Saut de Chaîne, Thèze ajoute même qu'il avait plaisanté à l'époque et affirmé que Froome « avait des tests à la Bernard Hinault ».
I read it as Theze had joked at that time by saying that Froome had tests like Hinault ! That is very different to say that he had results like Hinault's.

And as I wrote it earlier, can we find a reference before the 2015 TDF of that comparaison with Hinault?
 
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
I'm only pointing out what conclusions can or can't be drawn based on the physiological data. Specifically, some here seem to have mistakenly assumed that just because his VO2max apparently hasn't increased, his power must not have increased either.

For his power to have increased during this period:

1) his efficiency must have increased (which you think is possible, but not all in the field do)
2) the sustainable power reported in 2007, which just happens to be virtually identical to the sustainable power reported in 2015, must be an overestimate (and/or the one reported in 2015, which is already very high, must be an underestimate)
3) the peak power reported in 2007, which just happens to be very similar to the peak power reported in 2015, is probably off

Beyond this, though, I wonder why you are even speculating on this. Are you trying to argue that Froome didn't have the big engine that's implied by the 2007 test? Is this a way of explaining why Froome's results prior to Sky were rather unimpressive? Yet at the same time, you don't seem to think much of Jonh Swanson's analysis of TTs. which provides further evidence that his performance during this period was unimpressive. So I don't see why you'd even be concerned by his having a big engine back then.

Are you just trying to throw out all possible scenarios, without being particularly wedded to any of them? Or is there some particular point you're trying to get across?
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

If all this is true, then lets see the test data from 2007. All of it. There are people that can make that happen. But it appears someone doesn't want that data released. Why? I'm just waiting for the excuse that the data has "disappeared" and MC is the only one with an alleged copy of the data.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
acoggan said:
I'm only pointing out what conclusions can or can't be drawn based on the physiological data. Specifically, some here seem to have mistakenly assumed that just because his VO2max apparently hasn't increased, his power must not have increased either.

For his power to have increased during this period:

1) his efficiency must have increased (which you think is possible, but not all in the field do)
2) the sustainable power reported in 2007, which just happens to be virtually identical to the sustainable power reported in 2015, must be an overestimate (and/or the one reported in 2015, which is already very high, must be an underestimate)
3) the peak power reported in 2007, which just happens to be very similar to the peak power reported in 2015, is probably off

Beyond this, though, I wonder why you are even speculating on this. Are you trying to argue that Froome didn't have the big engine that's implied by the 2007 test? Is this a way of explaining why Froome's results prior to Sky were rather unimpressive? Yet at the same time, you don't seem to think much of Jonh Swanson's analysis of TTs. which provides further evidence that his performance during this period was unimpressive. So I don't see why you'd even be concerned by his having a big engine back then.

Are you just trying to throw out all possible scenarios, without being particularly wedded to any of them? Or is there some particular point you're trying to get across?

Just trying to help keep the discussion on track, vs. ending up way out in left field due to misinterpretations, false assumptions, illogical conclusions, etc.

Case-in-point: contrary to what you state above (in point 2), the 2007 data did not include any direct measurement of his sustained power output. Moreover, the peak power during an incremental exercise test provides no insight into this question, as it will primarily just track w/ VO2max.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re: Re:

MikeS369 said:
bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

If all this is true, then lets see the test data from 2007. All of it. There are people that can make that happen. But it appears someone doesn't want that data released. Why? I'm just waiting for the excuse that the data has "disappeared" and MC is the only one with an alleged copy of the data.

I'm confused...hasn't that been promised in the eventual peer-reviewed article?
 
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
Case-in-point: contrary to what you state above (in point 2), the 2007 data did not include any direct measurement of his sustained power output. Moreover, the peak power during an incremental exercise test provides no insight into this question, as it will primarily just track w/ VO2max.

Then what is your translation of "seuil ventillatoire" in the FAX? As I pointed out to you in another post, the Esquire article says this was his sustained power. I don't know how it was measured, but I thought we didn't know much about how anything was measured in that study.

To repeat:

What is striking is how similar the two reports, eight years apart, are. Apart from one thing. Froome was 75.6kg: more than 8kg heavier than his current race weight. His body fat was 16.9 per cent. “Frankly, for an elite cyclist that’s chubby,” says Swart. “But he produced better figures: peak power of 540 [15 watts higher than in August 2015], threshold of 420 — we made it 419, so it’s one watt less.”
 
Aug 18, 2015
32
0
0
If Swart at any time said he thinks Froome is doping, this whole attack and fraud calling of Swart would never be happening. Basically he is saying what no one here wants to here other than hanging Froome by a stake for doping. Ross on the other hand is a hero cause he is saying he believes Froome dopes.
Its like choosing your friends based on your similarities.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
acoggan said:
Case-in-point: contrary to what you state above (in point 2), the 2007 data did not include any direct measurement of his sustained power output. Moreover, the peak power during an incremental exercise test provides no insight into this question, as it will primarily just track w/ VO2max.

Then what is your translation of "seuil ventillatoire" in the FAX? As I pointed out to you in another post, the Esquire article says this was his sustained power. I don't know how it was measured, but I thought we didn't know much about how anything was measured in that study.

To repeat:

What is striking is how similar the two reports, eight years apart, are. Apart from one thing. Froome was 75.6kg: more than 8kg heavier than his current race weight. His body fat was 16.9 per cent. “Frankly, for an elite cyclist that’s chubby,” says Swart. “But he produced better figures: peak power of 540 [15 watts higher than in August 2015], threshold of 420 — we made it 419, so it’s one watt less.”
have to confirm you on both points.

as for 2007 measurement protocol:
"No protocol or test equipment information provided in report"
https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/ChrisFroome-BodyCompositionandAerobicPhysiology.pdf
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
acoggan said:
Case-in-point: contrary to what you state above (in point 2), the 2007 data did not include any direct measurement of his sustained power output. Moreover, the peak power during an incremental exercise test provides no insight into this question, as it will primarily just track w/ VO2max.

Then what is your translation of "seuil ventillatoire" in the FAX?

Ventilatory threshold.

Merckx index said:
As I pointed out to you in another post, the Esquire article says this was his sustained power. I don't know how it was measured, but I thought we didn't know much about how anything was measured in that study.

To repeat:

What is striking is how similar the two reports, eight years apart, are. Apart from one thing. Froome was 75.6kg: more than 8kg heavier than his current race weight. His body fat was 16.9 per cent. “Frankly, for an elite cyclist that’s chubby,” says Swart. “But he produced better figures: peak power of 540 [15 watts higher than in August 2015], threshold of 420 — we made it 419, so it’s one watt less.”

420 W at VT in 2007; 419 W at OBLA in 2015.

IOW, I think Swart was just being a bit loose with his terminology in the quote above (or the quote isn't perfectly accurate).

Why is this relevant? Because VT and OBLA are only predictors of actual performance, such data, even if accurate, do not rule out the possibility of a significant increase in Froome's sustainable power output. Now I have no idea of whether that happened, and if so, how he might have achieved it, but the point is that there is a lot of ill-informed speculation in this thread.
 
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
420 W at VT in 2007; 419 W at OBLA in 2015.

IOW, I think Swart was just being a bit loose with his terminology in the quote above (or the quote isn't perfectly accurate).

Why is this relevant? Because VT and OBLA are only predictors of actual performance, such data, even if accurate, do not rule out the possibility of a significant increase in Froome's sustainable power output. Now I have no idea of whether that happened, and if so, how he might have achieved it, but the point is that there is a lot of ill-informed speculation in this thread.

So do VT and OBLA refer to distinctly different points on the lactate curve, or are they used interchangeably? I'd think if anything, OBLA occurs at a slightly higher level, so that if he did 420 W at VT in 2007, he would do more than that at OBLA. Wouldn't you assume that if the values in the two studies were the same, probably there was no increase? And that if the comparable sustainable power value in 2007 was actually a little higher, it would be even less likely that there was an increase.

What ill-informed speculation are you referring to? Swart himself, as far as I can tell, seems to think Froome did not increase his sustainable power over that period. As I said before, I don't even know why you're so interested in this possibility, unless you're touting it as an alternative to the notion that it was mostly just weight loss.
 
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
MikeS369 said:
bigcog said:
acoggan said:
poupou said:
I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.

Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688

Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

If all this is true, then lets see the test data from 2007. All of it. There are people that can make that happen. But it appears someone doesn't want that data released. Why? I'm just waiting for the excuse that the data has "disappeared" and MC is the only one with an alleged copy of the data.

I'm confused...hasn't that been promised in the eventual peer-reviewed article?

I hope that is true. Your mention of that is the first time I have heard this.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
acoggan said:
420 W at VT in 2007; 419 W at OBLA in 2015.

IOW, I think Swart was just being a bit loose with his terminology in the quote above (or the quote isn't perfectly accurate).

Why is this relevant? Because VT and OBLA are only predictors of actual performance, such data, even if accurate, do not rule out the possibility of a significant increase in Froome's sustainable power output. Now I have no idea of whether that happened, and if so, how he might have achieved it, but the point is that there is a lot of ill-informed speculation in this thread.

So do VT and OBLA refer to distinctly different points on the lactate curve, or are they used interchangeably? I'd think if anything, OBLA occurs at a slightly higher level, so that if he did 420 W at VT in 2007, he would do more than that at OBLA. Wouldn't you assume that if the values in the two studies were the same, probably there was no increase? And that if the comparable sustainable power value in 2007 was actually a little higher, it would be even less likely that there was an increase.

VT is determined based on measuring respiratory gas exchange, not by obtaining blood and measuring lactate concentrations. In a heterogeneous sample, it would be correlated with OBLA, but on an individual basis, could be higher or lower by 5% or even more.

Speaking specifically to Froome's data, based on the data reported it is unlikely that his sustainable power was higher that 420 W in 2007, whereas it possible it was higher than 419 W in 2015. This is because the true metabolic control limit is unlikely to be above VT, but in trained male cyclists is often above OBLA. Given the apples-to-oranges nature of such comparisons as well as the fact that both VT and OBLA are only predictors of performance, no real conclusions can be drawn.

Merckx index said:
[What ill-informed speculation are you referring to? Swart himself, as far as I can tell, seems to think Froome did not increase his sustainable power over that period. As I said before, I don't even know why you're so interested in this possibility, unless you're touting it as an alternative to the notion that it was mostly just weight loss.

Well to start with you, just a few posts ago you seemed to be arguing that Froome's sustainable power was A) known, and B) hadn't increased, when in fact you seemed to be unaware of how VT was even determined.

Then there's The Hog, who thinks that a patch used to collect sweat is an ECG electrode, and attempts to impugn Swart by implying that he was lying that maximum heart rate wasn't available due to problems with a Polar-like chest strap.

There's also sniper, who attempted to imply that A) I am somehow associated with Mark Burnley, and B) I/we had something to do with the acceptance of Coyle's paper on Armstrong by JAP, seemingly not knowing (or caring) about the actual timeline of events, or even the limited role that members of the editorial boards play at scientific journals.

Finally, I can even point a finger at myself, in that I mistakenly assumed that because the original report on Froome didn't include any evidence that VO2, etc., were measured during the submaximal exercise test to determine "threshold", Froome's efficiency hadn't been determined. (In my defense, I'd say that was a logical assumption - after all, if you had the data, why not include it in the report? - and also I don't recall repeating that mistake here, only in my initial comments to Laura Weislo.)

As for why I'm interested, I'm simply pointing out that things aren't necessarily as black-and-white as many here seem to quick to assume. But, that's the nature of my personality, i.e., if the Emperor had no clothes on, I'd be the first to point it out.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
There's also sniper, who attempted to imply that A) I am somehow associated with Mark Burnley, and B) I/we had something to do with the acceptance of Coyle's paper on Armstrong by JAP,
ill-informed speculation indeed.
i did/said/implied neither (a) nor (b).

seemingly not knowing (or caring) about the actual timeline of events,
well-informed, this time. (not caring, that is.)

or even the limited role that members of the editorial boards play at scientific journals.
more ill-informed speculation.

the only thing i said wrt coyle 2005 is that you were all over the place deflecting away from justified skepticism.

as for Burnley. I just thought it was funny you two were on the same board, as you both seem to me to be in the habit of using pseudo-scientific data as an argument to draw attention away from doping, a topic both of you only grudgingly touch upon.
basically, if floyd hadnt fessed up, you and burnley would still be cheerleading coyle's article.
i think that's a fair bit of speculation.
 
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
VT is determined based on measuring respiratory gas exchange, not by obtaining blood and measuring lactate concentrations. In a heterogeneous sample, it would be correlated with OBLA, but on an individual basis, could be higher or lower by 5% or even more.

I understand that, but it still refers to a point on the lactate curve. It's one of several methods for estimating or defining sustained power or oxygen utilization.

Can you provide a link to a study in which power at VT was 5% higher than at OBLA for some individual? In a study of 28 "elite cyclists" (about half of them pros, including some who had won races), no significant difference between power at VT2 (which I assume is the VT referred to in the 2007 report) and OBLA was found, but the mean power associated with the OBLA values was actually about 7% higher than the mean for VT2. Again, not familiar with all the literature here, and this is only one study, but it suggests to me that it would be relatively rare to find an individual elite cyclist with sustained power at VT2 5% higher than that as determined at OBLA. Based on this study, at least, it would seem that the 2007 reported power would more likely to be underestimated, not overestimated, relative to the 2015 power.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756168/pdf/v033p00178.pdf

Speaking specifically to Froome's data, based on the data reported it is unlikely that his sustainable power was higher that 420 W in 2007, whereas it possible it was higher than 419 W in 2015. This is because the true metabolic control limit is unlikely to be above VT, but in trained male cyclists is often above OBLA. Given the apples-to-oranges nature of such comparisons as well as the fact that both VT and OBLA are only predictors of performance, no real conclusions can be drawn.

This is very interesting and relevant to the discussion if true. I wish you had posted it before. But the article I cited seems to contradict this. The mean sustained power at OBLA was higher than the mean power at VT2. The difference was not significant, but the point is, if the mean for OBLA for the group was at all higher than the mean for VT, then some of the individual cyclists, most likely a majority, must have had a higher power at OBLA than at VT2.

I could understand saying it's possible Froome's sustained power, measured consistently in the two years, was actually significantly greater in 2015 than in 2007. It's not something that can be conclusively ruled out. But it seems more likely that if anything, the reverse would be the case. The fact that peak power was also higher also supports this, even if we don't know exactly how the latter was measured in 2007.

Well to start with you, just a few posts ago you seemed to be arguing that Froome's sustainable power was A) known, and B) hadn't increased, when in fact you seemed to be unaware of how VT was even determined.

This exchange started when I responded to your assertion that there was no direct measurement of sustained power in 2007. There clearly was. I am aware of the different ways that sustainability can be defined, I was not aware that the differences in power at these various levels were very significant, and as both you and the paper I cited above in this post indicate, they apparently aren't at a population level.

I can appreciate that they may differ significantly for any particular individual. But as I just pointed out, the evidence of at least one paper is in the opposite direction that you indicate. Moreover, given that 1) Swart himself never pointed out that VT2 and OBLA shouldn't be compared for a particular individual; 2) the entire thrust of the discussion following the study was that Froome's absolute power was just as great in 2007 as in 2015; and 3) AFAIK, you never publicly called him on that, I think I can be forgiven for that. I assumed that I could take Swart at his word, and that if you didn't challenge his word, you also wouldn't challenge my repeating his word.

I'm now frankly very surprised you haven't been more critical of Swart. In recent podcasts that were linked upthread, he now backs away from his original claim that it was mostly weight loss, and suggests multiple factors underlying Froome's improvement, including schisto, better technique, and being the team leader. Unless I missed it though, he never says that there could have been a 5% or more improvement in sustainable power, not even as a possibility that can't yet be ruled out. Or if I possibly did miss that, I'm really sure he didn't say that the VT method in 2007 is a good reason for believing this.

Then there's The Hog, who thinks that a patch used to collect sweat is an ECG electrode, and attempts to impugn Swart by implying that he was lying that maximum heart rate wasn't available due to problems with a Polar-like chest strap.

There's also sniper, who attempted to imply that A) I am somehow associated with Mark Burnley, and B) I/we had something to do with the acceptance of Coyle's paper on Armstrong by JAP, seemingly not knowing (or caring) about the actual timeline of events, or even the limited role that members of the editorial boards play at scientific journals.

But these have nothing at all to do with questions about interpretations of sustainable power. I was responding to this:

Now I have no idea of whether that happened [Froome's sustainable power increased from 2007-15], and if so, how he might have achieved it, but the point is that there is a lot of ill-informed speculation in this thread.

I still haven't seen any ill-informed speculation on a possible power increase, except that Swart apparently conflated VT with OBLA without cautioning anyone on this, and no one called him on this through all the subsequent media discussion until I took him at his word, and only then you brought up possible individual differences. But I'm also not convinced, based on the article above, that the conflation is such a serious one.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

acoggan said:
thehog said:
The South African Augustyn, Swart and then Julich connection and that Swart was at this years Tour, perhaps Swart should have declined the offer to test? It appears rather odd that he was the one that was called up and accepted the offer. I don't doubt Swart did his job professionally but even with the slightest hint of conflict ones views can be compromised, even inadvertently.

My suggestion to Team Sky was that they have Froome tested at multiple labs, to avoid any appearance of favoritism and to rule out any lab-to-lab variance. In the end, though, it appears that they decided it was better to leave Froome to his own devices, so it couldn't be said that they were orchestrating things.

Was this over the phone or via email? Curious that you are that close to offer advice, given your ongoing misdirection during the Wiggins years.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
Now I'm the one who is going to go off on a conspiracy tangent. After seeing this tweet:

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/669845927184736256

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Froome (or whomever tweets under his name) knew the sort of brouhaha the release of his data was going to cause, and was getting a little shot in ahead of time.

Of course, it could entirely be coincidence...but in any case, Hoggie, there's the coach (i.e., Michel Theze) who has long been quoted as saying that Froome had a big aerobic "engine."

17% body fat.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
17% body fat. WCC team, Thereze, 2007

nYG1vex.jpg
 
Aug 18, 2015
32
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
acoggan said:
thehog said:
The South African Augustyn, Swart and then Julich connection and that Swart was at this years Tour, perhaps Swart should have declined the offer to test? It appears rather odd that he was the one that was called up and accepted the offer. I don't doubt Swart did his job professionally but even with the slightest hint of conflict ones views can be compromised, even inadvertently.

My suggestion to Team Sky was that they have Froome tested at multiple labs, to avoid any appearance of favoritism and to rule out any lab-to-lab variance. In the end, though, it appears that they decided it was better to leave Froome to his own devices, so it couldn't be said that they were orchestrating things.

Was this over the phone or via email? Curious that you are that close to offer advice, given your ongoing misdirection during the Wiggins years.

Swart was not at this years Tour at all other than presenting at the Science of Cycling Conference in Utrecht and then watched the Prologue. He did not meet with Chris there at all.

He had worked with Augustyn when Augustyn needed medical help wiht this hip and went to Swart. Thats how they met and then went on to form a coach / athlete relationship and Swart was a big help when it came to corresponding with Sky over the injury and operation.

He never knew Chris personally until they met back stage at a local SA cycling show. Michelle contacted him via phone call and asked if he would be willing to be there or part of the testing as a outside entity.
 

TRENDING THREADS