The FTP Passport

[acoggan]

Over 400 W/kg for more than 15'.....

I think that might indicate doping.

Ha! I just noticed that error last night...

 

[acoggan]

Then clearly you have zero understanding of human exercise physiology.

I take back what I said, Dear Wiggo - clearly you were just being deliberately obtuse. Not sure that's any better, though...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I take back what I said, Dear Wiggo - clearly you were just being deliberately obtuse. Not sure that's any better, though...

Incorrect.

 

[acoggan]

Incorrect.

So you're saying that you're not smart enough to have recognized that the units label was incorrect, i.e., you truly believed that I was posting a graph showing a maximal power of >1000 W per kg?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So you're saying that you're not smart enough to have recognized that the units label was incorrect, i.e., you truly believed that I was posting a graph showing a maximal power of >1000 W per kg?

Incorrect.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Merckx Index, I appreciate you staying civil with the discussion. I think we are just looking at this through different lenses and it makes it impossible to really understand one another.

The problem with using a few studies to support or argue against an FTP Passport is in the studies' inherent weaknesses. Which is, IMO, if the authors truly understood what the study is about they would never have done it; it'd be a waste of time. And if they don't understand it, which is the point of the whole study, it's almost certain they aren't controlling for something that is relevant that they are unaware of.

I'm not the best writer, but I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I've read thousands (literally) of studies like this over many years in addition to personal experience of training and racing with a power meter at a high level, in addition to years of experience with hundreds of coached athletes using power meters in training and racing at all levels. I can not cite the study that is my life as neatly as you can quote an abstract here. If I could download my brain for you to experience/understand it I would, but then of course we wouldn't be having this horribly inadequate conversation with words that are so clumsy. Someday, maybe, we'll be able to do that. I'm sure Winston Smith won't be happy about it.

Just so we get a good understanding of where various posters are coming from, I'd like to add this here.

Regarding Michele Ferrari and why he can't seem to be stopped:

It's a bit like 100 weekend warriors trying to take down Nibali on a climb. He's just flat out more intelligent than they are AND he doesn't have to play by the same rules. If they want to take him down they'd have to pay him to be on their side. No other way.

As others have said, he has a website. He'll answer your questions on his forum too. I rather admire his intellect. He got into the game at a different time and now he's Darth Vader. I bet that's quite a bit of fun.

(I am NOT JV1973. Waiting for mods to approve a new account to avoid confusion.)

 

[Merckx index]

Veloclinic proposes a simple mathematical model to estimate the probability that a particular power output results from doping:

A repeating theme heard in performance analysis discussions is that “Performance doesn’t prove doping.” Of course this is true because proof, as an absolute, doesn’t really exist. Instead, most real-world evidence driven judgments are based on probability and not “proof.” From this perspective, this post will illustrate the concept of using a mathematical model to estimate the probability of doping as a function of performance…

the assumption is that on a prototypical Tour de France climb a couple of clean riders should be able to sustain about 6 W/kg. A second assumption is that riders need to be able to sustain at least 5 W/kg to make the team and survive the race. Choosing a Gaussian model (a bell shaped curve) a mean of 5.5 W/kg and standard deviation of 0.25 W/kg will generate a distribution that meets these assumptions/observations. (Don’t worry if you don’t like my assumptions, at the end is a link to a Google spreadsheet that you can manipulate them for yourself).

Next, the overall prevalence of doping can be estimated from the published literature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25169441
In this review, the prevalence is estimated from 14-39%. The mean would be 31%, but for the sake of giving cycling the benefit of the doubt I used 25%.

Now the performance effect of doping needs to be considered. Ashenden has previously shown that EPO micro-dosing producing an increase of 10% in hemoglobin mass (the equivalent of 2 blood bags) is not flagged by the bio passport. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951
…However to stay reasonably conservative I used a 5% benefit from doping.

From the probability distribution and the estimated prevalence of 25% doping we can now generate the distribution of doped riders as a function of power and overlay that with the clean rider distribution... from the distribution models we can calculate the probability that a level of performance is likely to be produced by a clean versus doped rider.

As you can see based on this model and the assumptions above, the probability of doping at the 6 W/kg performance level on a prototypical climb is about 60%. The probability of doping increases to 80% at 6.2 W/kg, and approaches 100% at 7 W/kg.

http://veloclinic.com/estimating-the-probability-of-doping-as-a-function-of-power/

 

[meat puppet]

Interesting post and concept, thanks. Especially like the way Veloclinic illustrates his model by using very conservative assumptions. FWIW, I think this kind of reasoning is the way to go, since these discussions are often very much hindered by the idea that we must deal in metaphysical certainties.

IMHO the idea in performance analysis is first and foremost to equip spectators with conceptual tools to penetrate the layers of stories and explanations put forth by vested interest commentators and think for themselves. A mental self defence toolkit of sorts. In this day and age I am sure this kind of an aspiration will be deemed dangerous pseudoscience.

 

[doperhopper]

Re:

Interesting post and concept, thanks. Especially like the way Veloclinic illustrates his model by using very conservative assumptions. FWIW, I think this kind of reasoning is the way to go, since these discussions are often very much hindered by the idea that we must deal in metaphysical certainties.

IMHO the idea in performance analysis is first and foremost to equip spectators with conceptual tools to penetrate the layers of stories and explanations put forth by vested interest commentators and think for themselves. A mental self defence toolkit of sorts. In this day and age I am sure this kind of an aspiration will be deemed dangerous pseudoscience.

One could also try kind of a "Drake's equation" approach - calculate a product of various factors related to a particular rider... like "talk about number of tests passed" (500 = 100% doped), "speeches about how advanced we are wrt. competition" (number of stupid examples provided counts, like: pillows, handwashing, motorhomes), "self-appreciating BS rate" (etalons of clean cycling, etc.")... you name it, hundreds of suitable factors in The Clinic, the only question is weights and proper calibration (can be categorized, thus leaving space for new stuff)