The Froome Files, test data only thread

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

in the real world doping is the choice of pro cyclists. This has been seen time and time and time and time again! The culture to dope has not changed a jot in the history of the sport.

And what does that have to do with the scientific publication process?

Like any endeavor involving humans, corruption occasionally occurs, but the odds of Team Sky, say, being able to pay off the editor of reputable scientific journal are practically nil.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

in the real world doping is the choice of pro cyclists. This has been seen time and time and time and time again! The culture to dope has not changed a jot in the history of the sport.

And what does that have to do with the scientific publication process?

Like any endeavor involving humans, corruption occasionally occurs, but the odds of Team Sky, say, being able to pay off the editor of reputable scientific journal are practically nil.

With humans, corruption occurs more than occasionally, a lot more.

For how many decades did the cigarette industry buy off scientists and politicians?

As for the science industry, they have as much moral fibre as the average human!

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

double post, deleted.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

The only way anyone could influence the timing would be by delaying submission of the manuscript.

with all respect, that's just a lack of imagination.
it almost sounds as a lack of experience with peer review, but i know you have enough experience there.

All sorts of black ops are imaginable. I live in the real world, though.

real world? lol.
u should read up on scientific fraud.
ow, and on doping while ur at it.
but only if you care about those two phenomena, of course.
otherwise don,t bother and live the dream.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

No, you did not. As others have pointed, there could be any number of reasons why Hampton has referred any questions back to Team Sky. Only those who wear tinfoil hats and see dead people would assume something nefarious is going on.

Only those wearing tinfoil hats and see dead people? Not sure what that has to do with the report non longer being published. I get the sense you're just making things up.

Or are you blaming the University of Sheffield for dropping the publication? That wouldn't be fair, not sure you can draw that conclusion, no.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

so if I go up 5kms of 10% @ 50rpm in a 53x17 in 10.00mins
and then
the same in a 39x23 @ 95rpm in 10.00mins

the power outputs should be the same?

Ceteris paribus, yes.

Although I didn't exactly check the maths on the gearing and rpm quoted, which when I look again would not be possible in this instance.

5km in 10 minutes is 8.33 m/s = 30km/h
In 53x17, that's 77rpm with a 2096mm tyre
and in 39x23 that's 141rpm.

putting aside the fact that sustaining 30km/h up at 10% grade for 10-minutes would require something like 11.5W/kg and is not humanly possible.

But notwithstanding the gear ratio and humanly possible speed errors in the original question, my comments apply for more reasonable numbers that make more sense. i.e. a higher gear/lower cadence compared with and a lower gear/higher cadence resulting in the same humanly feasible speed and hence same power output.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

No, you did not. As others have pointed, there could be any number of reasons why Hampton has referred any questions back to Team Sky. Only those who wear tinfoil hats and see dead people would assume something nefarious is going on.

Only those wearing tinfoil hats and see dead people? Not sure what that has to do with the report non longer being published. I get the sense you're just making things up.

Or are you blaming the University of Sheffield for dropping the publication? That wouldn't be fair, not sure you can draw that conclusion, no.

"there's no way sky could ever influence the timing of the publication"
sounds a lot like "there's no way uci could ever help lance cover up doping"
par for the course for acoggan.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

so if I go up 5kms of 10% @ 50rpm in a 53x17 in 10.00mins
and then
the same in a 39x23 @ 95rpm in 10.00mins

the power outputs should be the same?

Ceteris paribus, yes.

Although I didn't exactly check the maths on the gearing and rpm quoted, which when I look again would not be possible in this instance.

5km in 10 minutes is 8.33 m/s = 30km/h
In 53x17, that's 77rpm with a 2096mm tyre
and in 39x23 that's 141rpm.

putting aside the fact that sustaining 30km/h up at 10% grade for 10-minutes would require something like 11.5W/kg and is not humanly possible.

But notwithstanding the gear ratio and humanly possible speed errors in the original question, my comments apply for more reasonable numbers that make more sense. i.e. a higher gear/lower cadence compared with and a lower gear/higher cadence resulting in the same humanly feasible speed and hence same power output.

sorry...yes the ratios were just being used to draw the difference between high/low cadence..

ok.....my crude understanding of training is finding me out no wonder I was never a pro ...but I'll ask the other way around. Are the training outputs the same were I to go on a big gear program (a la Moser pre-hour record) or to do the same hill reps but with very low gear?

I had laboured under the notion that the former (where the heart rate is lower when performing) would help to build 'strength'...whilst the latter would develop the cardio system more? So to then re-work that backwards was where I was getting my previous assumptions about oxygen doping being more efficient at higher cadences

sort of like high rep vs low rep in the weights room?

or should I just rip up my 80s training assumptions (and record collection)?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

or should I just rip up my 80s training assumptions (and record collection)?

This.

The forces in cycling, even low rpm efforts uphill, are quite low, an order of magnitude less than those involved in strength and strength training. e.g, a 60rpm effort at 350W on 170mm cranks is still only pushing ~ 33kg for both legs on average. Would you go to the gym and do 33kg squats for strength development (which would be significantly less than lifting your own body weight)? it'd be like pushing on an incline machine with no weights on the bars. Standing up out of a chair involves more force.

We are not strength limited in endurance cycling. The limiters are primarily aerobic metabolic.

Big gear training is mostly a ruse to make riders do hill repeats and maintain an effort level and through that provide stimulus to the aerobic system. Big gear or smaller/normal gear it's all much of a muchness as what matters is power and duration. There is one study that suggest some small benefit to such big gear efforts, but one study does not a body of evidence make.

(and record collection)?

It depends on the record. There were some 80s treasures.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

Likely...never.

Its amazing to think that its been a year, and they simply cant get to doing this.

Surely its going to drop 2 days before the Tour... with it being 'proof' that Froome has done all he can to prove the doubters wrong. Cycling Weekly to confirm that the data from 2007 correlated 8 years later with testing is all the evidence required.

On a side note; I'm really hoping and maybe expecting too much but Swart and co. might use additional data in the intervening years along with further blood analysis. I hope not going to say it will happen, that might help. Even Coyle managed to pull that off!

Hi Hog,

Thanks for the objective comments. I'm always happy to interact with rational discussion.

We have completed the responses to the reviewers and are currently completing the final edits before resubmitting the manuscript in the coming week. As is often the case, this has taken longer than initially predicted. Following our resubmission It is not possible to predict the exact timing of the publication of the manuscript as this is ultimately in the hands of the journal and editor. We feel confident that we have addressed all the reviewers comments adequately and hopefully this will avoid any further delay.

In response to your first comments: I would like to re-iterate that this data cannot provide any proof with respect to the doping debate. That question will only be answered by the test of time. I have stated this a good number of times to date. My personal interest in this study (as per my social media comments to Ross Tucker during the 2015 Tour and my predictions on what was physiologically required to produce the performances) was to assess whether the performances we are seeing at present could be considered beyond the capability of normal human physiology. If that was the case, then we could answer the doping question easily. Impossible is impossible, simple. From the release of the preliminary data, that answer is already clear. The requirements to win The Tour in recent years are within the bounds of normal physiology and within the capabilities of a clean athlete. Whether or not any of the winners in the last 8 years have managed to do it cleanly is another question. Using prohibited substances or methods can obviously allow a very talented athlete to produce spectacular performances. This manuscript will not answer that question one way or another.

What it does provide is some unique insights into Chris Froome's physiology. I didn't go into the study with the expectation that we would find anything novel. I expected so see a high VO2 max and concomitant high sub maximal values that would fit with the performances in the field. However, during analysis of the data we did find some unique characteristics and I think that they will make for some interesting reading and will almost certainly stimulate some debate both here and in more scientific forums.

With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab. There was more than enough data to produce a fairly lengthy manuscript as it is.

Regards,

Jeroen

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

Likely...never.

Its amazing to think that its been a year, and they simply cant get to doing this.

Surely its going to drop 2 days before the Tour... with it being 'proof' that Froome has done all he can to prove the doubters wrong. Cycling Weekly to confirm that the data from 2007 correlated 8 years later with testing is all the evidence required.

On a side note; I'm really hoping and maybe expecting too much but Swart and co. might use additional data in the intervening years along with further blood analysis. I hope not going to say it will happen, that might help. Even Coyle managed to pull that off!

Hi Hog,

Thanks for the objective comments. I'm always happy to interact with rational discussion.

We have completed the responses to the reviewers and are currently completing the final edits before resubmitting the manuscript in the coming week. As is often the case, this has taken longer than initially predicted. Following our resubmission It is not possible to predict the exact timing of the publication of the manuscript as this is ultimately in the hands of the journal and editor. We feel confident that we have addressed all the reviewers comments adequately and hopefully this will avoid any further delay.

In response to your first comments: I would like to re-iterate that this data cannot provide any proof with respect to the doping debate. That question will only be answered by the test of time. I have stated this a good number of times to date. My personal interest in this study (as per my social media comments to Ross Tucker during the 2015 Tour and my predictions on what was physiologically required to produce the performances) was to assess whether the performances we are seeing at present could be considered beyond the capability of normal human physiology. If that was the case, then we could answer the doping question easily. Impossible is impossible, simple. From the release of the preliminary data, that answer is already clear. The requirements to win The Tour in recent years are within the bounds of normal physiology and within the capabilities of a clean athlete. Whether or not any of the winners in the last 8 years have managed to do it cleanly is another question. Using prohibited substances or methods can obviously allow a very talented athlete to produce spectacular performances. This manuscript will not answer that question one way or another.

What it does provide is some unique insights into Chris Froome's physiology. I didn't go into the study with the expectation that we would find anything novel. I expected so see a high VO2 max and concomitant high sub maximal values that would fit with the performances in the field. However, during analysis of the data we did find some unique characteristics and I think that they will make for some interesting reading and will almost certainly stimulate some debate both here and in more scientific forums.

With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab. There was more than enough data to produce a fairly lengthy manuscript as it is.

Regards,

Jeroen

Thanks for update Jeroen

so, for the avoidance of doubt, the 2007 data will not be analysed (but discussed)?

 

[veganrob]

How can one make this statement if you don't know if you have a clean subject to start with?

The requirements to win The Tour in recent years are within the bounds of normal physiology and within the capabilities of a clean athlete

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

Likely...never.

Its amazing to think that its been a year, and they simply cant get to doing this.

Surely its going to drop 2 days before the Tour... with it being 'proof' that Froome has done all he can to prove the doubters wrong. Cycling Weekly to confirm that the data from 2007 correlated 8 years later with testing is all the evidence required.

On a side note; I'm really hoping and maybe expecting too much but Swart and co. might use additional data in the intervening years along with further blood analysis. I hope not going to say it will happen, that might help. Even Coyle managed to pull that off!

Hi Hog,

Thanks for the objective comments. I'm always happy to interact with rational discussion.

We have completed the responses to the reviewers and are currently completing the final edits before resubmitting the manuscript in the coming week. As is often the case, this has taken longer than initially predicted. Following our resubmission It is not possible to predict the exact timing of the publication of the manuscript as this is ultimately in the hands of the journal and editor. We feel confident that we have addressed all the reviewers comments adequately and hopefully this will avoid any further delay.

In response to your first comments: I would like to re-iterate that this data cannot provide any proof with respect to the doping debate. That question will only be answered by the test of time. I have stated this a good number of times to date. My personal interest in this study (as per my social media comments to Ross Tucker during the 2015 Tour and my predictions on what was physiologically required to produce the performances) was to assess whether the performances we are seeing at present could be considered beyond the capability of normal human physiology. If that was the case, then we could answer the doping question easily. Impossible is impossible, simple. From the release of the preliminary data, that answer is already clear. The requirements to win The Tour in recent years are within the bounds of normal physiology and within the capabilities of a clean athlete. Whether or not any of the winners in the last 8 years have managed to do it cleanly is another question. Using prohibited substances or methods can obviously allow a very talented athlete to produce spectacular performances. This manuscript will not answer that question one way or another.

What it does provide is some unique insights into Chris Froome's physiology. I didn't go into the study with the expectation that we would find anything novel. I expected so see a high VO2 max and concomitant high sub maximal values that would fit with the performances in the field. However, during analysis of the data we did find some unique characteristics and I think that they will make for some interesting reading and will almost certainly stimulate some debate both here and in more scientific forums.

With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab. There was more than enough data to produce a fairly lengthy manuscript as it is.

Regards,

Jeroen

Thanks for update Jeroen

so, for the avoidance of doubt, the 2007 data will not be analysed (but discussed)?

Correct. We have discussed it but not analysed it.

We have advised the scientists who collected that data to publish it independently.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

deleted, off topic.

 

[thehog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

 

[gillan1969]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Jeroen


Whilst not having seen the raw data, can you confirm the status of the 2007 data? You refer to 'scientists' having collected it? Do you know the purpose of its collection? I can imagine the UCI requiring some physiological testing (unlike sky obviously ) in order to help prepare training programs etc however, and it may be semantics, but would the guys doing it not just be exercise physiologists doing their day-job (so to speak)? rather than, say, scientists under taking research?

Also is the only data we have on weight the fax, if you've not seen the raw data?

Also, and outwith your remit...surely the mystery must remain that with such an 'absurdly' high body fat (despite some photos on here indicating otherwise) surely somebody at the UCI/Barloworld/Sky must have said..."steady Chris, lose the fat and you'll win the Tour"?

cheers

 

[thehog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Thanks JS. I have no doubt those from Lausanne are highly respected, however sans the raw data or something more than the fax (the two versions) we saw its hard to legitimise the data contained within. It was a long time ago, memories become sketchy so it’s hard to believe that data could be used for anything other than water cooler chat. The BMI value is worrying which leads to all sorts of questions. I would agree that the fat per 2007 value is 'absurdly high', Froome from photographs at the time doesn’t look to be carrying that type of weight, although visual guesstimates on fat % is not reliable but he certainly doesn't look like anything in the 17% range.

I agree on your quote that there was an entertainment factor to the testing and so there should be, this shouldn’t be all serious and about publishing in scientific journals then none of this data would get into the mainstream market for greater understanding. I don’t think Moore did your work justice though, I sensed that he was looking for the “missing link” in the Froome story and when Michelle came along with the “missing fax” all the dots joined together, it was a little too Nicolas Sparks-esque for my liking.

I don’t disagree with the principles with weight loss and improved performance, in this case the 8kg weight wasn’t lost between August and September 2011 but it was gradual through Barloworld, then to early Sky days and then “transformation”. That doesn’t correlate at all in the immense improvement and gains made in that short period in 2011.

Thanks again and look forward to the final report.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Jeroen


Whilst not having seen the raw data, can you confirm the status of the 2007 data? You refer to 'scientists' having collected it? Do you know the purpose of its collection? I can imagine the UCI requiring some physiological testing (unlike sky obviously ) in order to help prepare training programs etc however, and it may be semantics, but would the guys doing it not just be exercise physiologists doing their day-job (so to speak)? rather than, say, scientists under taking research?

Also is the only data we have on weight the fax, if you've not seen the raw data?

Also, and outwith your remit...surely the mystery must remain that with such an 'absurdly' high body fat (despite some photos on here indicating otherwise) surely somebody at the UCI/Barloworld/Sky must have said..."steady Chris, lose the fat and you'll win the Tour"?

cheers

I cannot answer any of those questions as I don't have specifics. When I refer to scientists, I refer to the fact that they well published and active in science. I assume the purpose of the test at the time was as a baseline for the UCI development squad. In which case they were acting as exercise physiologists. But as you point out. It is semantics.

As to why nobody got on top of the weight? I don't have any details as to what transpired. Surely the same could have been said for UIrich and many others. In my experience, many of the top teams were not at all invested in science. They would pay the riders lots of money and tell them to make sure they were in shape. Telekom being a prime example. Some still do these days but most of the teams have become much more invested in the science.

 

[poupou]

The 2007 datas show that Froome had a big engine that day, but don't say if those tests were done clean.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Thanks JS. I have no doubt those from Lausanne are highly respected, however sans the raw data or something more than the fax (the two versions) we saw its hard to legitimise the data contained within. It was a long time ago, memories become sketchy so it’s hard to believe that data could be used for anything other than water cooler chat. The BMI value is worrying which leads to all sorts of questions. I would agree that the fat per 2007 value is 'absurdly high', Froome from photographs at the time doesn’t look to be carrying that type of weight, although visual guesstimates on fat % is not reliable but he certainly doesn't look like anything in the 17% range.

I agree on your quote that there was an entertainment factor to the testing and so there should be, this shouldn’t be all serious and about publishing in scientific journals then none of this data would get into the mainstream market for greater understanding. I don’t think Moore did your work justice though, I sensed that he was looking for the “missing link” in the Froome story and when Michelle came along with the “missing fax” all the dots joined together, it was a little too Nicolas Sparks-esque for my liking.

I don’t disagree with the principles with weight loss and improved performance, in this case the 8kg weight wasn’t lost between August and September 2011 but it was gradual through Barloworld, then to early Sky days and then “transformation”. That doesn’t correlate at all in the immense improvement and gains made in that short period in 2011.

Thanks again and look forward to the final report.

Yes. I agree. There are some pictures where he looks lean. There are others from then and even from his time at Sky where he looks positively chubby. It may be that his weight fluctuated dramatically. I can't say for sure. Dramatic weight fluctuations will also adversely affect performance.

As to the other factors and the time frame: I can't give any insight. Bilharzia, tactics, weight loss, self belief. There are lots of possibilities. None of which are easy to prove or disprove. The same applies for performance enhancing substances.

Hopefully methods to detect prohibited substances will improve significantly. I readily admit that it is not easy to catch the cheats. Storing samples as they are doing now will add a lot of value. Albeit that we will have to wait a good while to confirm the results; or in your case, the suspicions.

Lets wait and see.

 

[gillan1969]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Jeroen


Whilst not having seen the raw data, can you confirm the status of the 2007 data? You refer to 'scientists' having collected it? Do you know the purpose of its collection? I can imagine the UCI requiring some physiological testing (unlike sky obviously ) in order to help prepare training programs etc however, and it may be semantics, but would the guys doing it not just be exercise physiologists doing their day-job (so to speak)? rather than, say, scientists under taking research?

Also is the only data we have on weight the fax, if you've not seen the raw data?

Also, and outwith your remit...surely the mystery must remain that with such an 'absurdly' high body fat (despite some photos on here indicating otherwise) surely somebody at the UCI/Barloworld/Sky must have said..."steady Chris, lose the fat and you'll win the Tour"?

cheers

I cannot answer any of those questions as I don't have specifics. When I refer to scientists, I refer to the fact that they well published and active in science. I assume the purpose of the test at the time was as a baseline for the UCI development squad. In which case they were acting as exercise physiologists. But as you point out. It is semantics.

As to why nobody got on top of the weight? I don't have any details as to what transpired. Surely the same could have been said for UIrich and many others. In my experience, many of the top teams were not at all invested in science. They would pay the riders lots of money and tell them to make sure they were in shape. Telekom being a prime example. Some still do these days but most of the teams have become much more invested in the science.

yeah...appreciate that..cool

re Ullrich...he was more of a weight yo yo-er intra-season and besides by the time he reached the Froome's transformation age, he had racked up a 1st and two 2nds at Le Tour. And then there is the other obvious issue with Ullrich

 

[Digger]

Well it wasn't science by sky that brought about froome's improvement because his wife was his dietician and he only went into a wind tunnel in May 2013. So they can't have it both ways - that they are paying attention to details but then leave riders off to their own devices.

 

[thehog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Thanks JS. I have no doubt those from Lausanne are highly respected, however sans the raw data or something more than the fax (the two versions) we saw its hard to legitimise the data contained within. It was a long time ago, memories become sketchy so it’s hard to believe that data could be used for anything other than water cooler chat. The BMI value is worrying which leads to all sorts of questions. I would agree that the fat per 2007 value is 'absurdly high', Froome from photographs at the time doesn’t look to be carrying that type of weight, although visual guesstimates on fat % is not reliable but he certainly doesn't look like anything in the 17% range.

I agree on your quote that there was an entertainment factor to the testing and so there should be, this shouldn’t be all serious and about publishing in scientific journals then none of this data would get into the mainstream market for greater understanding. I don’t think Moore did your work justice though, I sensed that he was looking for the “missing link” in the Froome story and when Michelle came along with the “missing fax” all the dots joined together, it was a little too Nicolas Sparks-esque for my liking.

I don’t disagree with the principles with weight loss and improved performance, in this case the 8kg weight wasn’t lost between August and September 2011 but it was gradual through Barloworld, then to early Sky days and then “transformation”. That doesn’t correlate at all in the immense improvement and gains made in that short period in 2011.

Thanks again and look forward to the final report.

Yes. I agree. There are some pictures where he looks lean. There are others from then and even from his time at Sky where he looks positively chubby. It may be that his weight fluctuated dramatically. I can't say for sure. Dramatic weight fluctuations will also adversely affect performance.

As to the other factors and the time frame: I can't give any insight. Bilharzia, tactics, weight loss, self belief. There are lots of possibilities. None of which are easy to prove or disprove. The same applies for performance enhancing substances.

Hopefully methods to detect prohibited substances will improve significantly. I readily admit that it is not easy to catch the cheats. Storing samples as they are doing now will add a lot of value. Albeit that we will have to wait a good while to confirm the results; or in your case, the suspicions.

Lets wait and see.

I sense the 2007 data didn’t stand up to the robustness of a peer-reviewed journal hence wasn’t included or that it couldn’t be verified/qualified as valid. Whilst those in Lausanne might have good reputations it appears even they weren’t willing to release that data; all of which gives rise that the 2007 outputs are best kept on the scratchy looking fax presented to Moore (by the subjects spouse no less).

I appreciate that you’ve been up front with respect to that data but if I cast my mind back to the time of the testing, the 2007 was the key aspect that linked in the 2015 data and showed that Froome always had this “big engine” – all we are left with now is a set of 2015 data of which has been fairly much verified by his extraordinary race performance and nothing else.

In terms of doping; I think what we have seen recently with UKAD, WADA, IAAF along with the lack of transparency from the UCI on doping suspensions and moto-fraud to know that testing etc. is woefully out of step with current doping technology & application thereof. We are no further on than 1998 to that respect.

 

[Digger]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Jeroen


Whilst not having seen the raw data, can you confirm the status of the 2007 data? You refer to 'scientists' having collected it? Do you know the purpose of its collection? I can imagine the UCI requiring some physiological testing (unlike sky obviously ) in order to help prepare training programs etc however, and it may be semantics, but would the guys doing it not just be exercise physiologists doing their day-job (so to speak)? rather than, say, scientists under taking research?

Also is the only data we have on weight the fax, if you've not seen the raw data?

Also, and outwith your remit...surely the mystery must remain that with such an 'absurdly' high body fat (despite some photos on here indicating otherwise) surely somebody at the UCI/Barloworld/Sky must have said..."steady Chris, lose the fat and you'll win the Tour"?

cheers

I cannot answer any of those questions as I don't have specifics. When I refer to scientists, I refer to the fact that they well published and active in science. I assume the purpose of the test at the time was as a baseline for the UCI development squad. In which case they were acting as exercise physiologists. But as you point out. It is semantics.

As to why nobody got on top of the weight? I don't have any details as to what transpired. Surely the same could have been said for UIrich and many others. In my experience, many of the top teams were not at all invested in science. They would pay the riders lots of money and tell them to make sure they were in shape. Telekom being a prime example. Some still do these days but most of the teams have become much more invested in the science.

You keep referring to Telekom - that's one team.

USP weren't like this. Rabobank weren't like this, ONCE weren't. CSC...Ullrich was certainly treated like a spoilt child but some of that was down to doping in winter months...I look forward to your other examples.