Alex Simmons/RST said:
bigcog said:
I am surprised Tucker hasn't said anything about this or has he ? Or has he decided it's probably not a good idea to look like a tit amongst sports science community ?
Tucker is more interested in being known than being right. Still, I'm looking forward to his analysis of performance in Rugby 7s and how that clearly tells us about doping.
Tucker here, hi Simmons, all
As to the paper, yeah, I read it, and apologies for not commenting on it yet - been working and trying to follow the Olympics. I'm not sure what I am supposed to say in order to look like a tit amongst the sports science community, but since you asked...
I think a solid paper, but then we always knew it would be, didn't we? It's a good group of scientists, whose credibility is among the best, and who have a track record of excellent work. I know Jeroen and Ken, and in particular have worked a lot with Jeroen, and he's at the top of this field. Even if we don't alway agree, we pull in the same direction and there's room to disagree, even about data.
I think the study design is clean, they measured the right things, they get the expected results. It's a pity about the heart rate,but those things do happen and I see no reason to read any more into that than a failure of signal. Maybe in hindsight a backup plan would have been good, given the unique occasion of this testing, but that's easy to say in hindsight.
As to the results, the value lies in the interpretation against the historical context, and that lies beyond the scope of a scientific publication. Or at least, this one. You can see in the discussion of the paper that there is obviously a good deal of interpretation against the known literature, but the kind of discussion happening here, and elsewhere in the sport, is not the type you'd expect in the paper, and so you would forgive that group of scientists for not going there, as it were.
For instance, the debate around just losing the fat invites the kind of analysis that I saw had already been offered here, about what Froome's power output relative to weight changes meant for him prior to his 2011 transformation. You can't really expect to see that in the discussion of this paper. Similarly, how Sky missed this pearl of a cyclist given what was incredible physiology obscured by bad diet and fat prior to the 2011 Vuelta is a
separate issue.
The main interpretative aspect, of course, is whether this once-off testing tells you anything about the validity of Froome's performances, and of course it does not. All it tells you, or rather confirms, is that the physiology of the cyclist who is currently winning Grand Tours is remarkable. You don't need a lab to know that, though it's nice to confirm. It's rather like if you put a box on the table in front of someone, there are only so many ways to describe the box, and that's what this paper has done as well as you can expect - it's described what the performances suggested would be possible. What it can't do is describe what's in the box, or rather more pertinently, how it got there. The notion that the testing would ever conclusively show anything was a misnomer, and if you thought that I was arguing for this, then I do think comprehension lessons might be in order.
The exercise is thus confirmatory, rather than revelationary. And that is, to be honest, part of the reason why I haven't commented on the publication of the paper - we knew last year what had been found, with the exception of the efficiency, which now completes the picture of that "box". This is a good case study of an elite endurance athlete,
one of the best ever tested, and it has been done soundly.
One thing I would say, given that some of us "pseudoscientists" made predictions about what physiology would be required to produce 6W/kg for 30 min in the Tour, this paper pretty neatly confirms that those predictions were accurate. So it's vindication for the idea that you can model physiology based on performance, and vice versa. Which is pretty obvious, but nevertheless, nice to see data confirming hypotheses.
Next, regarding 7s, Simmons, if you have any specific questions you'd like to ask, do let me know. Happy to explain a few things to you. I'm not sure what you were getting at about doping. I think you were trying to be snide, or make a joke, or both. And as for being known, given that you know nothing about me, I'd be cautious about assuming my motives.
Other than that, yeah, a good test by good scientists, and I only wish it could be part of a series on elite endurance champions, or that a paper might be written comparing them to one another. Sorry if I'm treating it somewhat superficially, but I am juggling a few other things and I can't always devote the time to do in-depth analyses or to post longer thoughts.
Ross
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram