The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

If only there was some software on the market that could do that for you?

Shameless.

 

[thehog]

Re:

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Maybe there is a small raise because its a combined effort of Froome putting in some extra power and a motor.

Before his attack at 30:54 he is already at "max HR" and he manages to put alot of extra watts in without an increase in HR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNpx2BOabE&t=1665s

It does indeed look odd. His max is 168, in that video he is peaking out at 155 before and during the attack, then it ticks up to 160 post attack. The attack was fairly long and sustained but does not increase the heartrate.

I do wonder who had access to the file in th first place and then decided to leak it. Must have been a reason to do so?

 

[acoggan]

If only there was some software on the market that could do that for you?

Shameless.

What software is that? (For extracting the data from the video, I mean...the rest could easily be done in, e.g., Excel.)

P.S. If anybody here is up to the onerous task of extracting the data from the video, I'd be happy to do the rest.

 

[thehog]

If only there was some software on the market that could do that for you?

Shameless.

What software is that? (For extracting the data from the video, I mean...the rest could easily be done in, e.g., Excel.)

Ok. Let's start again. The file was always in raw format. Vayer & others already have it. The overlay video was created with the timestamps on the file to the video reel with Final Cut Pro; a person (unnamed) who worked with Vayer to produce it. Reach out to Antoine, he'll send you the file.

 

[acoggan]

If only there was some software on the market that could do that for you?

Shameless.

What software is that? (For extracting the data from the video, I mean...the rest could easily be done in, e.g., Excel.)

Ok. Let's start again. The file was always in raw format. Vayer & others already have it. The overlay video was created with the timestamps on the file to the video reel with Final Cut Pro; a person (unnamed) who worked with Vayer to produce it. Reach out to Antoine, he'll send you the file.

I'm not that interested. :lol: That's why I hoped to Tom Sawyer someone here into examining the data in a logical manner.

 

[thehog]

If only there was some software on the market that could do that for you?

Shameless.

What software is that? (For extracting the data from the video, I mean...the rest could easily be done in, e.g., Excel.)

Ok. Let's start again. The file was always in raw format. Vayer & others already have it. The overlay video was created with the timestamps on the file to the video reel with Final Cut Pro; a person (unnamed) who worked with Vayer to produce it. Reach out to Antoine, he'll send you the file.

I'm not that interested. :lol: That's why I hoped to Tom Sawyer someone here into examining the data in a logical manner.

But you just said in your last post that would do it? Make up your mind.

To be honest, I don't think people here are interested in what you could produce either, so its all squared up.

 

[acoggan]

If only there was some software on the market that could do that for you?

Shameless.

What software is that? (For extracting the data from the video, I mean...the rest could easily be done in, e.g., Excel.)

Ok. Let's start again. The file was always in raw format. Vayer & others already have it. The overlay video was created with the timestamps on the file to the video reel with Final Cut Pro; a person (unnamed) who worked with Vayer to produce it. Reach out to Antoine, he'll send you the file.

I'm not that interested. :lol: That's why I hoped to Tom Sawyer someone here into examining the data in a logical manner.

But you just said in your last post that would do it? Make up your mind.

To be honest, I don't think people here are interested in what you could produce either, so its all squared up.

1. It would take me less time to crunch the numbers than to make a new contact and ask for data.

2. IOW, they'd prefer to continue just eyeballing things, and hence potentially remain ignorant? If so, suit yourselves/themselves - I was just pointing out the logical way to analyze the data.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

I don't know, it's subjective. Doesn't really matter, it was a massive acceleration which should have moved his heart rate.

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Sorry for the red herring.

Hilarious.

That's not really fair.

Most people realize that there's a good correlation between heart rate and power output. So in that light, it's quite reasonable for someone to assume that more power equals a bump in HR. It'd be great if you could teach us about the subtleties. HR lags effort. HR is "noisy". A billion things affect HR, not just effort - hydration, fatigue, temperature, etc, etc. You could also explain that this is why we use stupidly expensive power meters instead of HR meters.

It's not hilarious. But it is pompous as hell.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

"teach us". Lol,

The guy who went with Coyle's Lance study should now teach us about Froome's heart rate.

"not really fair"? Andy's reaction is about the saddest reaction I've ever seen to somebody admitting a mistake.
Maybe it's an act of class he's wholly unfamiliar with. Hence 'hilarious'.
Andy if that's how you treat students, then for god sake DONT teach us.

Serriously though, basically the near-whole cycling world thinks HR is relevant. Just not acoggan. Ergo, HR is irrelevant. Froome's leaked Ventoux heart rate data looked unusual, both to the trained and to the untrained eye. Just not to acoggan. Ergo there was nothing unusual about it. I think that's the lesson for today.

 

[pastronef]

Ventoux HR didnt seem odd to Dear Wiggo. and he´s not a Sky fan at all, au contraire.

viewtopic.php?p=1761241#p1761241

 

[sniper]

I didn't say it looked suspicious to everybody.
And I doubt Dear Wiggo would claim HR is irrelevant.

But it's a good find, pastronef and I value Dear Wiggo's opinion alot, he's ten times as knowledgeable as me, and he's unbiased, so if he says that then it's something I'll take with me.

I do know it looked suspicious to other, including trained, people. I've posted some examples of that upthread.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

"teach us". Lol,

The guy who went with Coyle's Lance study should now teach us about Froome's heart rate.

"not really fair"? Andy's reaction is about the saddest reaction I've ever seen to somebody admitting a mistake.
Maybe it's an act of class he's wholly unfamiliar with. Hence 'hilarious'.
Andy if that's how you treat students, then for god sake DONT teach us.

Serriously though, basically the near-whole cycling world thinks HR is relevant. Just not acoggan. Ergo, HR is irrelevant. Froome's leaked Ventoux heart rate data looked unusual, both to the trained and to the untrained eye. Just not to acoggan. Ergo there was nothing unusual about it. I think that's the lesson for today.

He knows things that you don't. You could use some humility and actually listen for a change.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

I don't know, it's subjective. Doesn't really matter, it was a massive acceleration which should have moved his heart rate.

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Sorry for the red herring.

Hilarious.

That's not really fair.

Most people realize that there's a good correlation between heart rate and power output. So in that light, it's quite reasonable for someone to assume that more power equals a bump in HR. It'd be great if you could teach us about the subtleties. HR lags effort. HR is "noisy". A billion things affect HR, not just effort - hydration, fatigue, temperature, etc, etc. You could also explain that this is why we use stupidly expensive power meters instead of HR meters.

It's not hilarious. But it is pompous as hell.

John Swanson

By "hilarious" I found it amusing that people seem to be all wound up about the fact that heart rate wasn't successfully recorded during all of Froome's lab testing because they want to compare it what happened during that stage, when there isn't agreement on even the pattern of the response. Seems like that's putting the heart before the course, no?

 

[acoggan]

Re:

"teach us". Lol,

The guy who went with Coyle's Lance study should now teach us about Froome's heart rate.

"Went with"?

"not really fair"? Andy's reaction is about the saddest reaction I've ever seen to somebody admitting a mistake.

Yeah, my comment wasn't really being fair to red flanders. It was really meant to be directed at this overall twist in the thread in general.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

I don't know, it's subjective. Doesn't really matter, it was a massive acceleration which should have moved his heart rate.

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Sorry for the red herring.

Hilarious.

That's not really fair.

Most people realize that there's a good correlation between heart rate and power output. So in that light, it's quite reasonable for someone to assume that more power equals a bump in HR. It'd be great if you could teach us about the subtleties. HR lags effort. HR is "noisy". A billion things affect HR, not just effort - hydration, fatigue, temperature, etc, etc. You could also explain that this is why we use stupidly expensive power meters instead of HR meters.

It's not hilarious. But it is pompous as hell.

John Swanson

By "hilarious" I found it amusing that people seem to be all wound up about the fact that heart rate wasn't successfully recorded during all of Froome's lab testing because they want to compare it what happened during that stage, when there isn't agreement on even the pattern of the response. Seems like that's putting the heart before the course, no?

Heart before the course. *snort* That's funny.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

I know two sports scientists with years of experience in cycling and a number of world tour cyclists - who say this video is highly suspicious. Seems we are all wrong.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

I know two sports scientists with years of experience in cycling and a number of world tour cyclists - who say this video is highly suspicious. Seems we are all wrong.

Over the years I've been burned (to a crisp) too many times because I've eyeballed something and it seemed obvious. I don't have the time, but I think it would be awesome if someone transcribed the numbers from that ride and crunched them. Was the lag in heart rate normal, did the HR match known max HR, aerobic limits, etc, etc? It looks dodgy as hell and I'd wager money it is. However, I'm the kind of guy that likes to put numbers to things. Kind of like when Hesjedal's bike took off after a crash. The physics says it's on the very edge of possible, but that it's stupendously improbable. The balance of probabilities says it's a hub motor, but the numbers can't make that conclusive.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

I know two sports scientists with years of experience in cycling and a number of world tour cyclists - who say this video is highly suspicious. Seems we are all wrong.

Non-sequitur. I was simply proposing a cogent way of analyzing the data, not taking a position on it.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

I tried to bring people's attention to it:
viewtopic.php?p=1954786#p1954786

 

[sniper]

I think the delay has been acknowledged (at least I remember we discussed that a few months ago) and it is not being ignored now (afaict).
The problem is the low heart rate and the fact that it only jumps to 162-3 max, whereas you'd expect it to go closer to 180 when/after he jumps.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I think the delay has been acknowledged (at least I remember we discussed that a few months ago) and it is not being ignored now (afaict).
The problem is the low heart rate and the fact that it only jumps to 162-3 max, whereas you'd expect it to go closer to 180 when/after he jumps.

To be fair to Froome, he has always stated his max heart rate as low, even when he wasn't very good. It's been in his books etc. Then only people who would really know is BikePure who Froome used to send his data to when he was an average rider. When he became super Dawg he stoppped giving them data. Sadly they cannot release without Froome's permission.

Many will know that Froome aligned with our organization some years ago whilst riding for Team Barloworld. We have asked for clarification from Chris on a number of occasions in the last 18 months via email and direct message on Twitter if he still wished to form part of our organization. As a result of not receiving such clarification from Chris or Team Sky in recent days we have made the difficult decision to remove his bio page from our website. This in no way insinuates that Froome is a suspicious rider but we feel that if riders do not support our organization then there is no reason for us to promote them as such.

http://www.velonews.com/2013/06/news/bike-pure-removes-froome-ahead-of-tour_292019#rXkLW6Mi9hxvCqe3.99

 

[acoggan]

Re:

I think the delay has been acknowledged (at least I remember we discussed that a few months ago) and it is not being ignored now (afaict).
The problem is the low heart rate and the fact that it only jumps to 162-3 max, whereas you'd expect it to go closer to 180 when/after he jumps.

1. Delay and kinetics are not the same thing.

2. Wasn't Froome's maximal heart rate in the lab tests 168 beats/min? Why would you therefore expect it to go any higher (esp. with the well-known suppressive effect of overreaching on maximal heart rate)?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

I tried to bring people's attention to it:
viewtopic.php?p=1954786#p1954786

Ta. Since I only pop in here once in a blue moon, I'd missed where you had pointed that out.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

He knows things that you don't.

All I might know (that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, at least that I've seen) is that not only are changes in heart rate delayed with respect to changes in power, but the kinetics have been fairly well-described. I am therefore surprised that no one seems to have taken the knowledge into account.

I tried to bring people's attention to it:
viewtopic.php?p=1954786#p1954786

Ta. Since I only pop in here once in a blue moon, I'd missed where you had pointed that out.

You mean you only pop in here when this thread comes to life again, which means you're keeping a good eye on it