The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

Re: Re:

wow. there are oceans between these responses on the one hand

acoggan
Are you really that clueless as to how academic peer review actually works?

Alex Simmons
You mean you are criticising a process that you clearly don't have much understanding of?

and this response on the other.

Merckx Index
This is actually a good question.

reminds me of the vast difference between Burnley & Swart on the one hand, and Ross Tucker on the other, in terms of how they react to inquiries on twitter.

You publish some BS and your reputation is gone. Done. Over. Never get it back.

Considering one of the citations in the Coyle paper was "L.Amrstrong - It's not about he Bike", I find it very hard to believe that a BS on its own will self regulate peer review. Highly doubtful in fact.

One look at the Radcliffe paper and the author is gushing over its subject. Coyle was much he same in describing the athlete.

BS comes in many different forms. It's not always obvious, as we have seen on those two examples.

 

[poupou]

Doping exists and seems present at the highest levels of most sports.
Therefore, any scientist study should put an hypothesis, that it could be invalid if the athlete was doped.

So the PR attempts of dubious athletes would be disminised.

 

[acoggan]

Apparently you were asleep when I emphasized how piss-poor all of pro cycling is with respect to what it would cost to influence an entire academic institution.

i don't think anybody (except you) is talking about 'an entire academic institution'. You're making unwarranted, strawman-ish, leaps.
The question is, could Sky exert some sort of influence on the UCT.

University of Cape Town = an entire academic institution.

Team Sky lacks the available resources to have any measurable influence (even if for some bizarre reason they were interested in trying).

In fact, the budget of all pro cycling teams together would barely make a dent.

 

[harryh]

Cheers

https://twitter.com/DrMarkBurnley/status/680509095548481536?lang=fi

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/680731488812400640?lang=fi

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

You guys are really hung up on peer review.It works really well and the nice thing is that it isn't even a critical part of the process. Let me explain: I'm betting Hog buy everyone a round of drinks if he found an obvious flaw or an outright lie in one of Coggan's papers. Now imagine a couple thousand scientists around the world who feel the same way. It doesn't matter if peer review catches it. You publish some BS and your reputation is gone. Done. Over. Never get it back.

Who here would believe anything Coyle published about the efficiency of a pro cyclist? Wouldn't matter if it appeared in Nature or the National Enquirer. Likewise, I hear Pons and Fleischman took up gardening to fill their time...

While you are correct in asserting that a scientist's reputation is based on many things, I think you exaggerate the 'hit' that Coyle's suffered as a result of the Armstrong article, at least among his peers.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Doping exists and seems present at the highest levels of most sports.
Therefore, any scientist study should put an hypothesis, that it could be invalid if the athlete was doped.

So the PR attempts of dubious athletes would be disminised.

Considering the rampant doping in the last 20+ years, it's a variable that should be considered, rather than "he just lost fat".

In this particular abstract, the key words might need to be updated

 

[sniper]

University of Cape Town = an entire academic institution.

this is getting a bit ridiculous.
nobody claimed, or would claim, that Sky would influence the entire UCT.
If there would be any influence exerted, it would be on segments and/or individuals of the uni. Not on the entire uni. Time to drop this strawman.

Team Sky lacks the available resources to have any measurable influence (even if for some bizarre reason they were interested in trying).

lol, i guess.

In fact, the budget of all pro cycling teams together would barely make a dent.

all the scientists i mentioned in my previous post (but which you somehow continue to ignore) beg to differ.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Doping exists and seems present at the highest levels of most sports.
Therefore, any scientist study should put an hypothesis, that it could be invalid if the athlete was doped.

So the PR attempts of dubious athletes would be disminised.

Considering the rampant doping in the last 20+ years, it's a variable that should be considered, rather than "he just lost fat".

In this's particular abstract, the key words might need to be updated

it's a precious example of pseudo-science.

i remember Mark Burnley defending that piece on twitter, dismissing suggestions that doping might have influenced the results. He was adamant that, even if Radcliffe were found to be doping, the claims presented in that paper would stand the test of time.
it's one of those occasions where you don't know whether to laugh or cry.


I like what a certain Simon Jenkins said on the topic of dubious weather science. It applies nicely to the tons of articles that either willingly or out of ignorance ignore the potential influence of doping on performance:

If the variables are too great, science should shut up, rather than peddle spurious expertise. But you can wave a banknote in a pundit's face and he will predict anything you like.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/italy-earthquake-laquila-banknote-predict

(disclaimer: i think it's the same Jenkins who founded the Int. Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, but that's besides the point here. I have no idea if this Jenkins guy is legit, i just liked this quote and how it applies here)

 

[acoggan]

nobody claimed, or would claim, that Sky would influence the entire UCT.

thehog followed up on The Carrot's ludicrous suggestion about the influence that Brailsford could exert by implying that UCT was swayable.

If there would be any influence exerted, it would be on segments and/or individuals of the uni. Not on the entire uni.

I agree.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Doping exists and seems present at the highest levels of most sports.
Therefore, any scientist study should put an hypothesis, that it could be invalid if the athlete was doped.

So the PR attempts of dubious athletes would be disminised.

Considering the rampant doping in the last 20+ years, it's a variable that should be considered, rather than "he just lost fat".

In this's particular abstract, the key words might need to be updated

it's a precious example of pseudo-science.

it's one of those occasions where you don't know whether to laugh or cry.


I like what a certain Simon Jenkins said on the topic of dubious weather science. It applies nicely to the tons of articles that either willingly or out of ignorance ignore the potential influence of doping on performance:

If the variables are too great, science should shut up, rather than peddle spurious expertise. But you can wave a banknote in a pundit's face and he will predict anything you like.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/italy-earthquake-laquila-banknote-predict

I'm not sure what it is to be honest. The conclusions within the paper tells you of an author extremely close to the subject, who doesn't appear to be able to consider alternate reasons for the improvement, some of which might not be natural.

 

[mrhender]

This thread is locked until further notice.

We have done our efforts to keep this on topic, but at this point there are other threads better suited to the ongoing line(s) of discussion.

 

[Irondan]

With the impending report due for release soon we were asked to re-open this thread.

Please post comments according to forum rules.

 

[lenric]

Don't know if this has ever been posted, but taking the chance, here it goes:

Futile & Incomplete Froome's Tests

Three weeks after the victorious TdF 2015, forced by the inevitable suspicions of doping, Chris Froome was submitted to a lab test at the GSK Human Performance Lab in London.
It took more than 100 days for his entourage to filter and make the results finally public.
The report presents all the limitations of a test carried out in a laboratory, but some information is interesting.

Prior to the actual performance testing, Froome was recorded to have a weight of 70.8 kg (9.8% fat), a whopping 3.8 kg above the weight declared at the TdF (67 kg), which is basically like saying that, after the 3-week stage race, he accumulated an average of 180g of weight per day, corresponding to an overfeeding of 1628 Kcal per day. A real sponge, which is suggesting of previous important caloric restrictions.

After only 10min (sic) of warm-up, Chris was subjected to a "sub-maximal aerobic test": 8x 4min starting from 250w, with steps of 25w, up to a maximum of 425w.
The pedaling cadence was not given, a fundamental parameter for evaluating cycling performances, those of Chris Froome in particular.
It is not so much the values of AT2 = 379w and AT4 = 419w that grab my attention, but their ​​Heart Rate values: 127 and 138 ppm respectively, compared with a HRmax of around 175 bpm, as reported by Froome himself. The Report, seriously lacking, does not mention the value of HR max reached in the next test (VO2max).

But even more surprising is the modest increase of Heart Rate in the progression from 250w to 425w: about 35bpm (the Report does not show the exact data), equal to 5.0 w/beat, which shows
a cardiac efficiency truly above average; this in my opinion is the most significant data out of all the testing.

The value of AT4 = 419w is definitely an underestimation by approximately 10% of the value recorded by Froome in a road test: in his autobiography "The Climb", Chris himself wrote he climbed the Col De La Madone in 30'09", six days before the start of the TdF 2013, developing an average FTP of 459w (6.85 w/kg with his TdF weight)...

Just to satisfy the curiosity, here are the times and relevant wattages recorded by some of the best cyclists in recent years on the Col De La Madone (13.1 km at an average gradient of 7%):

Richie Porte - 62kg (2014) in 29'40" - 431w - 6.96w/kg
Chris Froome - 67kg (2013) in 30'09" - 459w - 6.85w/kg
Tom Danielson - 59.5kg (2006) in 30'24" - 410w - 6.89w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 74.5Kg (1999) in 30'47" - 492w - 6.60 w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75kg (2005) in 31'11" - 488w - 6.50w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75 kg (2010) in 32'20" - 479w - 6.38 w/kg

15min after the "sub-maximal aerobic test", Froome performed the "incremental maximal test", starting from 150w with increments of 30w/min and measurement of oxygen consumption (VO2) taken on the average of 30". Again the cadence is completely unreported, if not for the fact that the test gets interrupted when the pedaling falls below 70RPM. The same omission is repeated with regards to the HR max achieved in the test.
VO2max is 5.91 l/min = 84.6 ml/kg/min = 88.2ml/kg/min with TdF weight (67kg).
An excellent value, but not significant in predicting performance, as premised by the very same carrying out the testing and as can be so easily guessed by comparing the "stratospheric" 92.0 ml/kg/min attributed to Greg Lemond for his Alpe d' Huez record (48min in the TdF 1985 together with Bernard Hinault), 10min away from the best times.

The Report also proposes the comparison with the test Froome carried out on 07/25/2007 at the Swiss Olympic Medical Center: 75.6 kg, 16.7% body fat, VO2max = 6.07 l/min = 80.2 ml/kg/min. This is also a value that is higher than the average of the professional cyclists, further confirming the futility of this measurement if we compare it with the inconsistent racing results of Froome back then.

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

http://www.53x12.com/#!blank/ubr8s

By Michelle Ferrari

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Don't know if this has ever been posted, but taking the chance, here it goes:

Futile & Incomplete Froome's Tests

Three weeks after the victorious TdF 2015, forced by the inevitable suspicions of doping, Chris Froome was submitted to a lab test at the GSK Human Performance Lab in London.
It took more than 100 days for his entourage to filter and make the results finally public.
The report presents all the limitations of a test carried out in a laboratory, but some information is interesting.

Prior to the actual performance testing, Froome was recorded to have a weight of 70.8 kg (9.8% fat), a whopping 3.8 kg above the weight declared at the TdF (67 kg), which is basically like saying that, after the 3-week stage race, he accumulated an average of 180g of weight per day, corresponding to an overfeeding of 1628 Kcal per day. A real sponge, which is suggesting of previous important caloric restrictions.

After only 10min (sic) of warm-up, Chris was subjected to a "sub-maximal aerobic test": 8x 4min starting from 250w, with steps of 25w, up to a maximum of 425w.
The pedaling cadence was not given, a fundamental parameter for evaluating cycling performances, those of Chris Froome in particular.
It is not so much the values of AT2 = 379w and AT4 = 419w that grab my attention, but their ​​Heart Rate values: 127 and 138 ppm respectively, compared with a HRmax of around 175 bpm, as reported by Froome himself. The Report, seriously lacking, does not mention the value of HR max reached in the next test (VO2max).

But even more surprising is the modest increase of Heart Rate in the progression from 250w to 425w: about 35bpm (the Report does not show the exact data), equal to 5.0 w/beat, which shows
a cardiac efficiency truly above average; this in my opinion is the most significant data out of all the testing.

The value of AT4 = 419w is definitely an underestimation by approximately 10% of the value recorded by Froome in a road test: in his autobiography "The Climb", Chris himself wrote he climbed the Col De La Madone in 30'09", six days before the start of the TdF 2013, developing an average FTP of 459w (6.85 w/kg with his TdF weight)...

Just to satisfy the curiosity, here are the times and relevant wattages recorded by some of the best cyclists in recent years on the Col De La Madone (13.1 km at an average gradient of 7%):

Richie Porte - 62kg (2014) in 29'40" - 431w - 6.96w/kg
Chris Froome - 67kg (2013) in 30'09" - 459w - 6.85w/kg
Tom Danielson - 59.5kg (2006) in 30'24" - 410w - 6.89w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 74.5Kg (1999) in 30'47" - 492w - 6.60 w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75kg (2005) in 31'11" - 488w - 6.50w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75 kg (2010) in 32'20" - 479w - 6.38 w/kg

15min after the "sub-maximal aerobic test", Froome performed the "incremental maximal test", starting from 150w with increments of 30w/min and measurement of oxygen consumption (VO2) taken on the average of 30". Again the cadence is completely unreported, if not for the fact that the test gets interrupted when the pedaling falls below 70RPM. The same omission is repeated with regards to the HR max achieved in the test.
VO2max is 5.91 l/min = 84.6 ml/kg/min = 88.2ml/kg/min with TdF weight (67kg).
An excellent value, but not significant in predicting performance, as premised by the very same carrying out the testing and as can be so easily guessed by comparing the "stratospheric" 92.0 ml/kg/min attributed to Greg Lemond for his Alpe d' Huez record (48min in the TdF 1985 together with Bernard Hinault), 10min away from the best times.

The Report also proposes the comparison with the test Froome carried out on 07/25/2007 at the Swiss Olympic Medical Center: 75.6 kg, 16.7% body fat, VO2max = 6.07 l/min = 80.2 ml/kg/min. This is also a value that is higher than the average of the professional cyclists, further confirming the futility of this measurement if we compare it with the inconsistent racing results of Froome back then.

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

http://www.53x12.com/#!blank/ubr8s

By Michelle Ferrari

Ferrari strikes me as pretty clueless.

 

[thehog]

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

Ferrari - nail, head. Ferrari despite his notorious background is very well respected amongst many riders. To be honest Sky just use for the most part the Ferrari model for the race tactics on power. I think Ferrari knows more than any other sports scientist going around. He seen everything there is to see.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Don't know if this has ever been posted, but taking the chance, here it goes:

Futile & Incomplete Froome's Tests

Three weeks after the victorious TdF 2015, forced by the inevitable suspicions of doping, Chris Froome was submitted to a lab test at the GSK Human Performance Lab in London.
It took more than 100 days for his entourage to filter and make the results finally public.
The report presents all the limitations of a test carried out in a laboratory, but some information is interesting.

Prior to the actual performance testing, Froome was recorded to have a weight of 70.8 kg (9.8% fat), a whopping 3.8 kg above the weight declared at the TdF (67 kg), which is basically like saying that, after the 3-week stage race, he accumulated an average of 180g of weight per day, corresponding to an overfeeding of 1628 Kcal per day. A real sponge, which is suggesting of previous important caloric restrictions.

After only 10min (sic) of warm-up, Chris was subjected to a "sub-maximal aerobic test": 8x 4min starting from 250w, with steps of 25w, up to a maximum of 425w.
The pedaling cadence was not given, a fundamental parameter for evaluating cycling performances, those of Chris Froome in particular.
It is not so much the values of AT2 = 379w and AT4 = 419w that grab my attention, but their ​​Heart Rate values: 127 and 138 ppm respectively, compared with a HRmax of around 175 bpm, as reported by Froome himself. The Report, seriously lacking, does not mention the value of HR max reached in the next test (VO2max).

But even more surprising is the modest increase of Heart Rate in the progression from 250w to 425w: about 35bpm (the Report does not show the exact data), equal to 5.0 w/beat, which shows
a cardiac efficiency truly above average; this in my opinion is the most significant data out of all the testing.

The value of AT4 = 419w is definitely an underestimation by approximately 10% of the value recorded by Froome in a road test: in his autobiography "The Climb", Chris himself wrote he climbed the Col De La Madone in 30'09", six days before the start of the TdF 2013, developing an average FTP of 459w (6.85 w/kg with his TdF weight)...

Just to satisfy the curiosity, here are the times and relevant wattages recorded by some of the best cyclists in recent years on the Col De La Madone (13.1 km at an average gradient of 7%):

Richie Porte - 62kg (2014) in 29'40" - 431w - 6.96w/kg
Chris Froome - 67kg (2013) in 30'09" - 459w - 6.85w/kg
Tom Danielson - 59.5kg (2006) in 30'24" - 410w - 6.89w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 74.5Kg (1999) in 30'47" - 492w - 6.60 w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75kg (2005) in 31'11" - 488w - 6.50w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75 kg (2010) in 32'20" - 479w - 6.38 w/kg

15min after the "sub-maximal aerobic test", Froome performed the "incremental maximal test", starting from 150w with increments of 30w/min and measurement of oxygen consumption (VO2) taken on the average of 30". Again the cadence is completely unreported, if not for the fact that the test gets interrupted when the pedaling falls below 70RPM. The same omission is repeated with regards to the HR max achieved in the test.
VO2max is 5.91 l/min = 84.6 ml/kg/min = 88.2ml/kg/min with TdF weight (67kg).
An excellent value, but not significant in predicting performance, as premised by the very same carrying out the testing and as can be so easily guessed by comparing the "stratospheric" 92.0 ml/kg/min attributed to Greg Lemond for his Alpe d' Huez record (48min in the TdF 1985 together with Bernard Hinault), 10min away from the best times.

The Report also proposes the comparison with the test Froome carried out on 07/25/2007 at the Swiss Olympic Medical Center: 75.6 kg, 16.7% body fat, VO2max = 6.07 l/min = 80.2 ml/kg/min. This is also a value that is higher than the average of the professional cyclists, further confirming the futility of this measurement if we compare it with the inconsistent racing results of Froome back then.

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

http://www.53x12.com/#!blank/ubr8s

By Michelle Ferrari

Ferrari strikes me as pretty clueless.

For a guy who has 'won' lots of GTs, i doubt that.

 

[thehog]

Dr. Ferrari's training plans were good enough for Evans and Rogers.

I think his training list was or is the biggest out of any trainer in ProCyling.

 

[thehook]

Ferrari has said that he does not work with any more athletes. "I'm in Pension"

That does not mean that his vast knowledge and many writings are not used by Trainers worldwide. When I sit back and try to look at what is the current state of training,nutrition,altitude camps,race tactics, etc. It looks to me that Il Dottore is/was light years ahead of anyone in the field of sports medicine.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

Ferrari has said that he does not work with any more athletes. "I'm in Pension"

That does not mean that his vast knowledge and many writings are not used by Trainers worldwide. When I sit back and try to look at what is the current state of training,nutrition,altitude camps,race tactics, etc. It looks to me that Il Dottore is/was light years ahead of anyone in the field of sports medicine.

Yes of course, after all weren't they all just drinking orange juice

 

[momotaro]

Re:

Don't know if this has ever been posted, but taking the chance, here it goes:

Futile & Incomplete Froome's Tests

Three weeks after the victorious TdF 2015, forced by the inevitable suspicions of doping, Chris Froome was submitted to a lab test at the GSK Human Performance Lab in London.
It took more than 100 days for his entourage to filter and make the results finally public.
The report presents all the limitations of a test carried out in a laboratory, but some information is interesting.

Prior to the actual performance testing, Froome was recorded to have a weight of 70.8 kg (9.8% fat), a whopping 3.8 kg above the weight declared at the TdF (67 kg), which is basically like saying that, after the 3-week stage race, he accumulated an average of 180g of weight per day, corresponding to an overfeeding of 1628 Kcal per day. A real sponge, which is suggesting of previous important caloric restrictions.

After only 10min (sic) of warm-up, Chris was subjected to a "sub-maximal aerobic test": 8x 4min starting from 250w, with steps of 25w, up to a maximum of 425w.
The pedaling cadence was not given, a fundamental parameter for evaluating cycling performances, those of Chris Froome in particular.
It is not so much the values of AT2 = 379w and AT4 = 419w that grab my attention, but their ​​Heart Rate values: 127 and 138 ppm respectively, compared with a HRmax of around 175 bpm, as reported by Froome himself. The Report, seriously lacking, does not mention the value of HR max reached in the next test (VO2max).

But even more surprising is the modest increase of Heart Rate in the progression from 250w to 425w: about 35bpm (the Report does not show the exact data), equal to 5.0 w/beat, which shows
a cardiac efficiency truly above average; this in my opinion is the most significant data out of all the testing.

The value of AT4 = 419w is definitely an underestimation by approximately 10% of the value recorded by Froome in a road test: in his autobiography "The Climb", Chris himself wrote he climbed the Col De La Madone in 30'09", six days before the start of the TdF 2013, developing an average FTP of 459w (6.85 w/kg with his TdF weight)...

Just to satisfy the curiosity, here are the times and relevant wattages recorded by some of the best cyclists in recent years on the Col De La Madone (13.1 km at an average gradient of 7%):

Richie Porte - 62kg (2014) in 29'40" - 431w - 6.96w/kg
Chris Froome - 67kg (2013) in 30'09" - 459w - 6.85w/kg
Tom Danielson - 59.5kg (2006) in 30'24" - 410w - 6.89w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 74.5Kg (1999) in 30'47" - 492w - 6.60 w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75kg (2005) in 31'11" - 488w - 6.50w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75 kg (2010) in 32'20" - 479w - 6.38 w/kg

15min after the "sub-maximal aerobic test", Froome performed the "incremental maximal test", starting from 150w with increments of 30w/min and measurement of oxygen consumption (VO2) taken on the average of 30". Again the cadence is completely unreported, if not for the fact that the test gets interrupted when the pedaling falls below 70RPM. The same omission is repeated with regards to the HR max achieved in the test.
VO2max is 5.91 l/min = 84.6 ml/kg/min = 88.2ml/kg/min with TdF weight (67kg).
An excellent value, but not significant in predicting performance, as premised by the very same carrying out the testing and as can be so easily guessed by comparing the "stratospheric" 92.0 ml/kg/min attributed to Greg Lemond for his Alpe d' Huez record (48min in the TdF 1985 together with Bernard Hinault), 10min away from the best times.

The Report also proposes the comparison with the test Froome carried out on 07/25/2007 at the Swiss Olympic Medical Center: 75.6 kg, 16.7% body fat, VO2max = 6.07 l/min = 80.2 ml/kg/min. This is also a value that is higher than the average of the professional cyclists, further confirming the futility of this measurement if we compare it with the inconsistent racing results of Froome back then.

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

http://www.53x12.com/#!blank/ubr8s

By Michelle Ferrari

I agree with Ferrari. The real surprise is in the heart rate response. A stress echo would be interesting.

 

[gillan1969]

impending? i.e. just in time for the tour?

got to love a PR machine..................

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Don't know if this has ever been posted, but taking the chance, here it goes:

Futile & Incomplete Froome's Tests

Three weeks after the victorious TdF 2015, forced by the inevitable suspicions of doping, Chris Froome was submitted to a lab test at the GSK Human Performance Lab in London.
It took more than 100 days for his entourage to filter and make the results finally public.
The report presents all the limitations of a test carried out in a laboratory, but some information is interesting.

But even more surprising is the modest increase of Heart Rate in the progression from 250w to 425w: about 35bpm (the Report does not show the exact data), equal to 5.0 w/beat, which shows
a cardiac efficiency truly above average; this in my opinion is the most significant data out of all the testing.


Just to satisfy the curiosity, here are the times and relevant wattages recorded by some of the best cyclists in recent years on the Col De La Madone (13.1 km at an average gradient of 7%):

Richie Porte - 62kg (2014) in 29'40" - 431w - 6.96w/kg
Chris Froome - 67kg (2013) in 30'09" - 459w - 6.85w/kg
Tom Danielson - 59.5kg (2006) in 30'24" - 410w - 6.89w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 74.5Kg (1999) in 30'47" - 492w - 6.60 w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75kg (2005) in 31'11" - 488w - 6.50w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75 kg (2010) in 32'20" - 479w - 6.38 w/kg


The Report also proposes the comparison with the test Froome carried out on 07/25/2007 at the Swiss Olympic Medical Center: 75.6 kg, 16.7% body fat, VO2max = 6.07 l/min = 80.2 ml/kg/min. This is also a value that is higher than the average of the professional cyclists, further confirming the futility of this measurement if we compare it with the inconsistent racing results of Froome back then.

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

http://www.53x12.com/#!blank/ubr8s

By Michelle Ferrari

Ferrari strikes me as pretty clueless.

Which is why Lance Armstrong chose Ferrari as his actual trainer and used Coyle as his patsy

 

[Digger]

Amazing - Andrew on here knocking Ferrari - whilst constantly defending Coyle - wtf...

 

[gillan1969]

ferrari = soros
coyle = greenspan

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re:

Ferrari has said that he does not work with any more athletes. "I'm in Pension"

That does not mean that his vast knowledge and many writings are not used by Trainers worldwide. When I sit back and try to look at what is the current state of training,nutrition,altitude camps,race tactics, etc. It looks to me that Il Dottore is/was light years ahead of anyone in the field of sports medicine.

That does not mean he isn't lying.

In any sophisticated criminal organisation, il Capo never meets directly with his criminal actors, but only ever communicates with them through a trusted emissary. Ferrari's downfall (such as it is) largely stems from the fact that he treated his association with the athletes as a medical and/or clinical enterprise, not a criminal one. Meeting and communicating directly with his clients manifestly increased the risk of discovery and exposure, both to him and the client.

Advances in digital technology now make the tools of secure communication and secure payment (cryptocurrency) readily available. Toss in one or two intermediaries (seriatim) to serve as relays and Ferrari vanishes from the transaction chain.

With this much (essentially untraceable) money at play, can you imagine a man with his C.V. would not at least have pondered the possibility? And can you imagine there haven't been specialists in such technical matters (and willing to get dirt on their hands) who have approached him to offer their services? Presuming, that is, he didn't seek them out on his own initiative.