The Froome Files, test data only thread

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

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.

If he was born with GT dominance, his performances would have simply buried his competitors at lower levels. The testing at UCI would have shown him to be extraordinary. Every team would have wanted him, not just Sky.

To the bolded, I'm reminded of Chris Horner's performances explained away as "not eating cheeseburgers any more." Ridiculous.

I'll leave the disciplined reasoning to Merckx Index and Ross. Thank you for posting Ross!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

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.

If he was born with GT dominance, his performances would have simply buried his competitors at lower levels. The testing at UCI would have shown him to be extraordinary. Every team would have wanted him, not just Sky.

To the bolded, I'm reminded of Chris Horner's performances explained away as "not eating cheeseburgers any more." Ridiculous.

I'll leave the disciplined reasoning to Merckx Index and Ross. Thank you for posting Ross!

Can you fix the quoting in your post please. I didn't say that. Thanks.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

To the bolded, I'm reminded of Chris Horner's performances explained away as "not eating cheeseburgers any more." Ridiculous.

Moreover,
Former pro Johnny Lee Augustyn is on the record (in the book VavaFroome) stating that Froome was already extremely cautious about his diet in 2006-2008 when Augustyn and he rode and trained together at Barloworld. Augustyn was one of Froome's best buddies in that period, so he should be granted credibility.

Now, all that should have not a shred of relevance to Swart's interpretation of Froome's data, if it were not for the fact that for many years the same Johnny Lee Augustyn was coached by Swart.
One might now wonder whether Johhny Lee has at any point in time informed Swart about Froome's attention to diet in the 2006-8 period.

I'll leave the disciplined reasoning to Merckx Index and Ross. Thank you for posting Ross!

Amen

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I apologise to Ross for my "known than right..." comment.

Not sure what I did when posting as I thought I'd already posted this earlier (so if a repeat post appears...).

As to Ross's long post above, I think we are pretty much in agreement and I've said pretty much the same things about what the test can and cannot tell us.

Re 7s - I think that in discussion of performance in Rugby (whatever form) which you do a lot of, why is the impact of doping overlooked? As I stated earlier - it's in the top 10 sports with anti-doping rule violations (although that probably says more about the lack of testing in many sports as it does about Rugby). Obviously not for comment here as it's OT - it's for a separate discussion perhaps.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Second, you say that this confirms what you have been saying about the physiology needed to perform as he has. I think that's mostly correct, but you are on record saying that anything above about 6 .2 - 6.3 watts/kg for 30-40 minutes is very suspicious. Technically, Swart's study doesn't show that Froome is better than that, but if you assume he preserved his V02max and threshold power at his racing weight--and Swart thought that was reasonable enough to provide numbers based on that--then he is definitely suspicious. Swart's sustainable power at 67 kg would be about 6.4, and that's assuming he couldn't go higher beyond 4 mM lactate, which is at least a possibility. And using the hot/humid GE, his V02 max and assuming a threshold at 90%, we're up to 6.5. Even for just 20 minutes that seems to cross your line.

The sans doping physiological limit of 6.2W/kg (now 30-min!) is something I don't agree with Ross on.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

thanks sniper and hog

a question Swart might have asked Froome is that if he thinks the following

"On his visit to the lab, Froome said, “This was my first time to the GSK Human Performance Lab and it has been pretty mind-blowing. Just the level of detail involved in everything here, it really is cutting edge technology.”

One of the reasons he approached the lab was to measure and advance his progression. By carrying out the sort of physiological assessments he performed at the lab, Froome will be able to better understand his body’s performance and how he can use that science to ensure he remains at the top of cycling.

The reigning Tour de France champion said, “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

why has he never done this with the team that leaves no stone un-turned to get improvements

its as though they just make stuff up

Froome's comments sound like they've been through the PR machine.

Lab tests like this are largely redundant if one is using power meters in training and racing.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

That does not mean PPO = power at VO2max. An incremental test to exhaustion form which one obtains PPO, will also elicit a state of VO2max in the process.

VO2max can be elicited at a range of power outputs. e.g. ride at threshold +10% and you'll also elicit a state of VO2max. It just takes longer.

Sure, but that’s why a ramp test is usually done, so that oxygen consumption and power go up more or less together.

Or change the slope of the power demand (e.g. 20W/min) and you get a different PPO but still obtain the same VO2max result.

I’ve never taken one of these tests, so don’t speak from experience, but it seems to me that regardless if the ramp is 20 or 30, one is going to hit about the same end point. So if one hits at 450 using a ramp of 30, I would think one would stop at 440 or 460 using 20, which is just a 2% difference.

The PPO attained is sensitive to the protocol used.

And the V02max won’t necessarily be exactly the same, either. Any ramp test has some degree of arbitrariness.

I don’t want to quibble over this, but Swart himself obviously took the PPO he determined fairly seriously. From The Hardest Road:

“Chris’s peak power is 525 watts, which corresponds to 7.51w/kg: a massive figure,” Swart continues. “But the interesting thing is that the [sustained] figure of 6w/kg — which is basically what he produced in the lab — is 79.8 per cent of his peak power. That’s a completely reasonable percentage.”

He thought it was valid enough to compare it with sustained power.

No quibble, interesting to discuss.

Comparing sustained power to a PPO, or to say MAP is a pretty normal thing to do. With enough data you'll get to understand the normal range. For example, with a 20W/min protocol, the ratio of elite rider FTP to MAP is typically in the 72-77% range.

There is no way Froome has an AWC in excess of 100kJ!
Something very wrong with the AWC values quoted in that paper.

They were estimated from climbing data, so problems in both the climbing data (effect of weather conditions, e.g.), as well as in the assumptions of the model, ...

There is something very wrong with the numbers for all the riders in that paper. It's almost an order of magnitude out (and I think it's the choice of inputs because the maths is correct - well I think it is - I pulled Froome's number from the chart by eyeballing and did the calcs to come up with the same implausibly high value of 105kJ).

I'd put Froome somewhere between 10-20kJ. Perhaps a little higher if he trained for it. There is no reason to think elite endurance athletes have a super high AWC, relative to e.g. an amateur sprint racer. It's pursuit riders and track sprinters that have high AWC and they are no where near as high as that paper is quoting.

 

[gillan1969]

thanks sniper and hog

a question Swart might have asked Froome is that if he thinks the following

"On his visit to the lab, Froome said, “This was my first time to the GSK Human Performance Lab and it has been pretty mind-blowing. Just the level of detail involved in everything here, it really is cutting edge technology.”

One of the reasons he approached the lab was to measure and advance his progression. By carrying out the sort of physiological assessments he performed at the lab, Froome will be able to better understand his body’s performance and how he can use that science to ensure he remains at the top of cycling.

The reigning Tour de France champion said, “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

why has he never done this with the team that leaves no stone un-turned to get improvements

its as though they just make stuff up

Froome's comments sound like they've been through the PR machine.

Lab tests like this are largely redundant if one is using power meters in training and racing.

so wouldn't you just provide all the data to researcher?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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

Outstanding to have you here. Great to have a well-respected voice in the forums.

 

[Benotti69]

thanks sniper and hog

a question Swart might have asked Froome is that if he thinks the following

"On his visit to the lab, Froome said, “This was my first time to the GSK Human Performance Lab and it has been pretty mind-blowing. Just the level of detail involved in everything here, it really is cutting edge technology.”

One of the reasons he approached the lab was to measure and advance his progression. By carrying out the sort of physiological assessments he performed at the lab, Froome will be able to better understand his body’s performance and how he can use that science to ensure he remains at the top of cycling.

The reigning Tour de France champion said, “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

why has he never done this with the team that leaves no stone un-turned to get improvements

its as though they just make stuff up

Froome's comments sound like they've been through the PR machine.

Lab tests like this are largely redundant if one is using power meters in training and racing.

Which proves Froome/Sky are hiding behind these tests as releasing all his power meter data would be transparent and tell us as close to the truth what Froome can do.

A PR exercise is all this was and Swart was another collaborator in this.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

so wouldn't you just provide all the data to researcher?

I think you'd need to ask Froome/Sky that.

Having said that, a researcher would want to validate the data, which likely can't be done post hoc unless those collecting it can provide and detail their methodology. e.g. like was done for this study where the researchers were validating the power meters and collecting the data:
http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/6308.pdf

Of course things are complicated in case of Froome due to the use of non-circular chainrings (has a variable impact on power data bias) and the move to using Stages (and all the variable errors associated with unilateral power measurement).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Which proves Froome/Sky are hiding behind these tests as releasing all his power meter data would be transparent and tell us as close to the truth what Froome can do.

Well I suppose you can say that about every rider that has a power meter.

But even if they did release it all, it still wouldn't give answers about any rider's doping status.

There is nothing that can provably demonstrate with absolute certainly an athlete is not doping. Not you, not me, not Froome.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

I apologise to Ross for my "known than right..." comment.

Having thought about this a little more, I no doubt needed to express my thoughts in a better way than a throw away line.

I think what I struggle with is my expectations of someone of promoting themselves as Science of something.

When someone represents themselves as a voice of science, I have a higher expectation from them wrt reliable and well though through comments and I expect they would make a greater effort than perhaps a lay person might to find out more before saying anything on a topic.

If it was from a personal account, I wouldn't have the same expectation but when you represent science, I feel it demands a high(er) quality filter. I have a sense that Ross applies too low a quality filter at times. Not always of course but I expect better.

A couple of recent examples include comments about Wiggins' inhaler (factually wrong and Ross admitted the mistake) and a tacit acceptance of cupping as being OK (when it's a woo therapy that can and does cause harm). Then there is Vayer. To me, when you represent yourself as a voice of science, there is a responsibility to refrain from saying something until you have the facts / done some research to validate when you are not actually sure, or at at least enough to make a well informed comment. Firing under informed comments off too quickly does harm when it comes from a voice of science source we are supposed to trust.

Perhaps I am being unreasonable? If the site/twitter feed was not call "Science of..." or was made from a personal account then my expectations would be different.

My comments/opinion apply to any site/organisation representing themselves as a voice of science.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Appreciate seeing this here. Apparently this simple fact was/is lost on the part of the cycling world who attributed anything useful to these tests. I asked what the point of this testing would be when this was announced, noting this rather obvious elephant in the room. Not a lot of takers (an understatement) to my question from the "Froome is clean" contingent which existed at the time.

Thankfully few if any on this forum still hold on to such dreams.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

I apologise to Ross for my "known than right..." comment.

Perhaps I am being unreasonable?

Not in the least. Passion is no substitute for knowledge or deep understanding - in fact, it can be a significant hindrance, as, e.g., some of your countrymen's statements have demonstrated.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

A couple of recent examples include…a tacit acceptance of cupping as being OK (when it's a woo therapy that can and does cause harm).

Do you have links supporting this claim? I don’t know much about the procedure, but there are certainly numerous studies claiming possible benefits, e.g.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27225291

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27181126

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27348903

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27157955

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X08005564

http://www.complementarytherapiesinmedicine.com/article/S0965-2299(08)00063-0/abstract?cc=y=

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2012/429718/abs/

http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6215-12-146

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25399022

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26891653

No doubt there are risks, too, as discussed in a recent review in the above list. But many if not most medical procedures have risks. The question is whether for some people the potential benefits may outweigh the possible risks. While there may have not been enough studies of enough subjects to conclude with high certainty that it has medical benefits, by the same token I don’t believe there are enough data to warrant dismissing it as quack medicine, either.

Passion is no substitute for knowledge or deep understanding - in fact, it can be a significant hindrance, as, e.g., some of your countryman's statements have demonstrated.

To paraphrase Einstein, passion without knowledge is ignorant, but knowledge without passion is impotent.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

A couple of recent examples include…a tacit acceptance of cupping as being OK (when it's a woo therapy that can and does cause harm).

Do you have links supporting this claim? I don’t know much about the procedure, but there are certainly numerous studies claiming possible benefits, e.g.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27225291

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27181126

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27348903

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27157955

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X08005564

http://www.complementarytherapiesinmedicine.com/article/S0965-2299(08)00063-0/abstract?cc=y=

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2012/429718/abs/

http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6215-12-146

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25399022

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26891653

No doubt there are risks, too, as discussed in a recent review in the above list. But many if not most medical procedures have risks. The question is whether for some people the potential benefits may outweigh the possible risks. While there may have not been enough studies of enough subjects to conclude with high certainty that it has medical benefits, by the same token I don’t believe there are enough data to warrant dismissing it as quack medicine, either.

It's a bit OT but anyway, one only has to look at the journal names to be highly skeptical of many of the listed studies, let alone the lack of proper controls. One says cupping+acupuncture was as effective as acupuncture! :lol:

Here's a couple of Science of type blogs that are somewhat more rigorous in their approach. I've read and listened to Dr Novella for many years, he's a smart guy and a great proponent of (genuine scientific) skepticism:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cupping-olympic-pseudoscience/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/08/09/thanks-michael-phelps-for-glamorizing-cupping-quackery/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/08/10/my-last-word-i-hope-michael-phelps-cupping-and-integrative-medicine/

 

[biker jk]

so wouldn't you just provide all the data to researcher?

I think you'd need to ask Froome/Sky that.

Having said that, a researcher would want to validate the data, which likely can't be done post hoc unless those collecting it can provide and detail their methodology. e.g. like was done for this study where the researchers were validating the power meters and collecting the data:
http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/6308.pdf

Of course things are complicated in case of Froome due to the use of non-circular chainrings (has a variable impact on power data bias) and the move to using Stages (and all the variable errors associated with unilateral power measurement).

Team Sky are using a mix of single and dual sided Stages.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Team Sky are using a mix of single and dual sided Stages.

Yes but they wouldn't have when they first changed to using them, since they were not yet available. Indeed they are still not available to the public which suggests they are still a product in development, with all the issues that go with tech at that stage.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

There is something very wrong with the numbers for all the riders in that paper.

That is because it was written by an engineer who appears to have little understanding of the topic at hand. Specifically, he seems to not realize that the values you obtain for AWC and CP are directly dependent upon the durations of the tests used to fit the Monod model - the extremely high AWC values (and correspondingly, underestimated values for CP) are the direct result of using data from efforts that are far too long, i.e., beyond the domain of the validity of the model.

 

[acoggan]

If we look at peak power per lean mass (which is probably a better way of looking at it as fat doesn't contribute to power generation) it is 9.00 w/kg in 2007 compared with 8.56 w/kg in 2015. Which means his time trial performances early in his career should have been a lot better than they were.

It doesn't mean that in the least. PPO during an incremental exercise test and sustainable power during a TT are essentially two different things (especially over such a narrow range).

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

The sans doping physiological limit of 6.2W/kg (now 30-min!) is something I don't agree with Ross on.

Much less the ~5.8 W/kg limit at the end of stages that he has endorsed previously.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

one only has to look at the journal names to be highly skeptical of many of the listed studies

And/or publishers. E.g., Hindawi journals is a well-known "predatory publisher", that publishes essentially anything that is submitted as long as the authors are willing to pay a fee of several thousand dollars. They prey on unsuspecting scientists new to publishing, especially those in developing countries. This (along with other scams, e.g., fake reviews that assure acceptance of a paper) are a huge problem in science these days, due to the large profits margins of scientific journals (at least those not published by a scientific society) as well as the ever-growing pressure to increase productivity/publication rates. (This is partially why I have to laugh behind my hand when people whine that I've never bothered to publish my applied ideas in a sports science journal.)

 

[Soggy Chamois]

For Dr. Swart and the other sports scientists on the forum, is the 9.8% body fat figure at all surprising coming only 3 weeks after the Tour De France conclusion where many riders, including Froome look almost emaciated? Indeed, Moore himself uses the word emaciated to describe Froome even at the time of the GSK lab testing.

Similarly, does that 9.8% body fat make sense when Froome plans to start and perform well at a second grand tour only 5 days after the August 2015 testing?

How low of a body fat percentage would a typical elite cyclist be able to reach before one might expect performance/power to begin to decline? Is there an optimal body fat percentage range to target for grand tours?

Do you think grand tour riders, whether through WADA compliant methods or doping methods, might be trying to drop additional body weight by reducing their bone mass - since one might expect an ability to drop additional weight without impacting power if bone mass is targeted?

One final note, not directed at anyone, but just in case it wasn't covered in the previous 80 pages: I notice in the Richard Moore article that he indicates blood data is shown for an out-of-competition blood test that was "taken the morning after his test in the GSK Human Performance Lab". From GSK's own website, the physiological testing was Aug.17th. In the article, Richard Moore lists the blood data as being from Aug. 20th. I'm not sure it's significant - but Aug.20th is not the day after the lab tests as he wrote - it's inconsistent.

Just bumping these questions since we've had some recent participation by acoggan, alex, tucker, merckx. Any of you have any thoughts on the body composition questions above?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

It's a bit OT but anyway, one only has to look at the journal names to be highly skeptical of many of the listed studies, let alone the lack of proper controls.

Ironic that you’re willing to dismiss studies simply based on what journal they’re published in--guilt by association--but won’t apply that extreme skepticism to riders winning races known to be populated by dopers.

One says cupping+acupuncture was as effective as acupuncture! :lol:

Sort of like Froome’s claim that he put out less power on a climb than that of several riders he dropped on that climb.

Here's a couple of Science of type blogs that are somewhat more rigorous in their approach. I've read and listened to Dr Novella for many years, he's a smart guy and a great proponent of (genuine scientific) skepticism

I’m not here to support cupping, it has the appearance of one of those trendy therapies that probably have very little effect. But frankly, the bloggers you link to sometimes sound as biased and prejudiced as any of the authors of these studies may be. They basically diss the entire field of integrative medicine, and conclude that highly successful and respected medical centers all over the U.S. are promoting quackery. They probably don’t think marijuana has any medical uses, either.

Even the Ernst review that one of the bloggers favorably quotes says that cupping may be effective for reducing pain. Given the huge numbers of people who suffer from chronic pain, often not alleviated satisfactorily by drugs, wouldn’t any procedure that might alleviate pain for some people be worth researching? The blogger also notes that the most positive findings are for subjective indices. But pain is a subjective problem. If someone says a treatment reduces pain, it doesn’t really matter if the doctor can’t find a correlation with an objective marker. Presumably there is one, but one doesn’t have to hold up the treatment until it’s found.

There are lots of examples of areas in health research where the evidence for some procedure is not statistically significant. Some cancer therapies have required many years of studies to validate, and even then there may be dissent in the medical community. Doctors may also disagree strongly on which diagnostic tests should be used, and how often.

I think some research should not be supported, e.g., I knew someone a while back who was studying the effect of prayer on the growth of cells in culture. But it isn't just the lack of evidence that puts studies like these out of bounds. It's the fact that there's nothing in the scientific worldview that would make it possible to account for an effect of prayer. If there were an effect, that worldview--and an enormous number of studies that have been used to develop it--would be thrown out the window. Cupping presents no such challenge. It clearly has an effect on localized blood flow, and in theory, there are certainly ways in which this effect might have benefits on certain medical problems. We can certainly debate how much public money should go into studies like these, but I wouldn't regard any money as necessarily a waste, as these bloggers do.

Anyway, we got into this discussion because you provided it as an example of Ross Tucker's falling short of strong scientific standards. I don't know what Ross said on the subject, but if he just views it as a harmless procedure, I wouldn't hold it against him. If he thinks it can improve athletic performance, then, yes, he deserves to be challenged.

That is because it was written by an engineer who appears to have little understanding of the topic at hand. Specifically, he seems to not realize that the values you obtain for AWC and CP are directly dependent upon the durations of the tests used to fit the Monod model - the extremely high AWC values (and correspondingly, underestimated values for CP) are the direct result of using data from efforts that are far too long, i.e., beyond the domain of the validity of the model.

I think you need to explain this more. All the discussions of CP I've seen indicate it's fairly valid up to about 60 minutes, and only two of the data points used by Dauwe--one for Indurain and one for Horner--exceeded this time (and in both cases, the point was on or near the fitted line, indicating it didn't skew conclusions much). Your own table seems to put efforts in this range at zone 4, 90-100% of FTP. I understand shorter times are usually used, up to about 20 minutes, but my understanding is that's mostly for convenience, not because the longer times don't fit the curve. Are you saying they don't?

Also, if those longer times are the problem--if they increase the calculated AEC--then they should fall below the fitted line. They should skew the line towards a greater slope, indicative of AEC, while reducing the intercept, which is CP. That does not seem to be the case with the Dauwe data.

Here’s a study of two British TTers that used 50 minutes as the longest effort. Note that the AWC (AEC) for the man was about 25 kJ, close to what I was estimating for Froome if he was merely at the high end of what studies of non-elite athletes have reported. Still far below Dauwe’s estimates, though.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2011/05001

In any case, Dauwe apparently has developed a new CP model which he argues supports his finding of very high AEC values:

http://www.jsc-journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=195

He seems to think that longer times actually provide a better estimate of AEC, and argues that "In modern cycling the anaerobic component is more important than generally accepted." An interesting finding that might be taken as support for the CP values he calculates is that:

Also remarkable is the fact (not shown in fig 1) that the average climbing power of Froome in 14 non-exhaustive climbs [i.e., not MTF] of (5.05 ± 0.34) is barely lower than his CP of (5.16 ± 0.02) W/kg. This clearly indicates that modern strategy of the dominant teams is the one of “least controlling power” i.e. riding at a pace just below the leaders CP in order to bring him fresh to the foot of the final climb, but at a pace high enough to exhaust the other contenders.

He concludes with a passage that you and Alex will definitely not like:

More investigation of the 2 parameter CP model of the grand tours is necessary and might lead to a performance passport as a supplement to the existing biological passport. Future studies could be facilitated and could gain in public acceptance and credibility with the creation of a public database containing the power data files (SRM, Powertap and others) of all top riders.

http://search.proquest.com/openview/b03856277cf16ff777fb158d8d6c8036/1?pq-origsite=gscholar