Chris Froome's test data released...

[guido]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-physiological-test-data-released/

Discuss.

[54ny77]

Conclusion: he pedaled faster than the other guys, won a race in France. :beer:

[dzxc]

Important figures from the publication of Chris Froome's physiological test

2015 test weight: 69.9kg
2015 Tour de France weight: 67kg
2007 test weight: 75.6kg
2015 VO2 max: 84.6
VO2 max correlating to 2015 Tour weight: 88.2
2007 VO2 max: 80.2
2015 peak power: 525 watts
2015 threshold (20-40 minutes): 419 watts
2015 watts-per-kilogram: 5.98
2015 Tour watts-per-kilogram: 6.25w/kg
2007 peak power: 540 watts
2007 threshold (20-40 minutes): 420 watts

[sparky33]

Conclusion: He is really skinny and has a big engine.

[OtayBW]

I initially mis-read this as psychological testing. Thought it would explain all that stem stairing...

[guido]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/12/news/froome-normally-not-normal_390216

More analysis...

[MattTuck]

In 2007, he was 16.9% body fat. That seems pretty high for a competitive cyclist.

What are the implications on those two numbers (VO2 max, and sustainable power, and peak power) of having just finished a grand tour?

[malbecman]

Conclusion: He is really skinny and has a big engine.


Seriously. He was 154lbs in 2007 and now he's 147 and putting out those numbers. Pretty amazing.

[CunegoFan]

Seriously. He was 154lbs in 2007 and now he's 147 and putting out those numbers. Pretty amazing.

The problem is that he is on record telling Paul Kimmage he weighed 71 kilos on Barloworld (2008). There are also pictures of him in 2006 that clearly show someone who is not 17% body fat.

That Barloworld weight and a 420 Watt FTP would have given him a power to weight ratio that would have made him competitive at the the Tour, even with the drug use prevalent at the time.

More problematic is that even if at a younger age he was down 50 Watts off 420 then he would have been a spectacular amateur. There would have been stories of him riding people off his wheel. There would have been tales similar to a young LeMond racing older riders and dominating based purely on raw talent. Instead he was unremarkable as an amateur in South Africa. Something doesn't make sense.

It is also interesting that despite Team Sky's PR campaign about revolutionary training, Froome does not appear to have made any progress other than losing weight, something his wife takes credit for.

[livingminimal]

I'm 19% BF presently, down from 27% and trying to get to 10% in 2016. I have my bodyfat test a couple of times per year by hydrotastic dunking. It is the most accurate means readily available. Most professional cyclists are 7% or less. Even the bigger Rouleur and classics pros are going to be well below 10%

There is no way in hell Chris Froome has ever been that close to as pudgy as I am. No way in hell. What are the English terms? Daft? Thick? Someone certainly is here...

[weisan]

"Froome's physiological tests will not stop every doubter, says Brailsford..."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froomes-physiological-tests-will-not-stop-every-doubter-says-brailsford/

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2015/07/27/1/20155068_273090_670.jpg

You got that damn straight, sirreee daveee.

[rain dogs]

The problem is that he is on record telling Paul Kimmage he weighed 71 kilos on Barloworld (2008). There are also pictures of him in 2006 that clearly show someone who is not 17% body fat.

Chris Froome 2008 TdF w/ Barloworld - he finished 83rd.

https://dorsal51.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/froome-1.jpg

[rustychisel]

Chris Froome 2008 TdF w/ Barloworld - he finished 83rd.


https://dorsal51.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/froome-1.jpg

Yeah, right on. Look at that ridiculous stem length, it's about a 90mm.

[soulspinner]

Yeah, right on. Look at that ridiculous stem length, it's about a 90mm.

ya, hes not even staring at it...

[livingminimal]

Chris Froome 2008 TdF w/ Barloworld - he finished 83rd.

https://dorsal51.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/froome-1.jpg

If that's 17% body fat, we all look AMAZING.

[ultraman6970]

There is a way to now that the data is real and not edited before going to the outside world?? I mean, that I know of there is no way to know.

Honestly in that picture he looks a lot fatter than now a days but either way, at 17% you can't compete with this people, that means that probably 90% of the good amateur riders could have been able to do pro-tour and at least finish a 3 weeks tour as he did. Not saying he is doping, but IMO there is a chance the numbers aren't 100% accurate, like if it was that hard to edit the data before going to the press.

[Joachim]

There is a way to now that the data is real and not edited before going to the outside world?? I mean, that I know of there is no way to know.

Honestly in that picture he looks a lot fatter than now a days but either way, at 17% you can't compete with this people, that means that probably 90% of the good amateur riders could have been able to do pro-tour and at least finish a 3 weeks tour as he did. Not saying he is doping, but IMO there is a chance the numbers aren't 100% accurate, like if it was that hard to edit the data before going to the press.

I really doubt that the scientists from the high performance lab at GSK are going to put their careers on the line for Froome's test values. The scientific world tends to work a little differently than Festina in the 90's. I would wait for the peer reviewed published manuscript since the reviewers might ask for additional analyses.

[CunegoFan]

I really doubt that the scientists from the high performance lab at GSK are going to put their careers on the line for Froome's test values. The scientific world tends to work a little differently than Festina in the 90's. I would wait for the peer reviewed published manuscript since the reviewers might ask for additional analyses.

The people at GSK are not the ones providing the 2007 numbers, which include him being 17% body fat. The UCI provided that. Specifically it is Dr. Mario Zorzoli, who personally facilitated doping on various teams.

It is those pre transformation numbers that are important. The question comes down to how could a guy with such a huge engine never distinquish himself in amateur racing or during the first four or five years as a pro.

[Joachim]

The people at GSK are not the ones providing the 2007 numbers, which include him being 17% body fat. The UCI provided that. Specifically it is Dr. Mario Zorzoli, who personally facilitated doping on various teams.

It is those pre transformation numbers that are important. The question comes down to how could a guy with such a huge engine never distinquish himself in amateur racing or during the first four or five years as a pro.

What data would convince you that he is clean? I'm not being facetious, I honestly would like to know. I don't have a problem with someone being sceptical (as long as they understand all the science behind it), but if the main assumption is that no amount of data or tests can ever change their opinion, then everything is useless. When my students present research papers as part of one of their graduate electives, I always tell them that critical thinking is good but so is an open mind. If there is no room for a change in opinion, then all the facts in the world won't change a thing. Feel free to PM me if this is too much OT.

[dcama5]

What data would convince you that he is clean? I'm not being facetious, I honestly would like to know. I don't have a problem with someone being sceptical (as long as they understand all the science behind it), but if the main assumption is that no amount of data or tests can ever change their opinion, then everything is useless. When my students present research papers as part of one of their graduate electives, I always tell them that critical thinking is good but so is an open mind. If there is no room for a change in opinion, then all the facts in the world won't change a thing. Feel free to PM me if this is too much OT.

Exactly! With the recent past in cycling, I do not blame the forum member that does not have training in physiology and pharmacology for suspecting that every big win is doped, still, it's just bias to think every win is doped without proof. We (forum members) know all about micro-dosing EPO, so the testers surely do as well. My questions for the skeptics are: what drug is he doing and how is he getting away with it in today's peloton?

[Joachim]

Exactly! With the recent past in cycling, I do not blame the forum member that does not have significant training in cardio-pulmonary physiology and pharmacology for suspecting that every big win is doped, still, it's just bias to think every win is doped without proof. We (forum members) know all about micro-dosing EPO, so the testers surely do as well. My questions for the skeptics are: what drug is he doing and how is he getting away with it in today's peloton?

I won't even go that far to request specifics on methods and compounds, but just the simple question of which data? If it's longitudinal, how long? If it's profiles, which system? When is enough, enough? Discussions often veer to the historical and philosophical instead of sticking to the biological.

[rain dogs]

I won't even go that far to request specifics on methods and compounds, but just the simple question of which data? If it's longitudinal, how long? If it's profiles, which system? When is enough, enough? Discussions often veer to the historical and philosophical instead of sticking to the biological.

MHO is that for anyone, not just Froome, there is a extra responsibility to provide data that brackets a period of massive transformation. Explained with hard numbers, or at least a clearly communicated timeline of events.

I'd like to see Sky's data on Froome when they were saying he was useless and considering cutting him. Then I'd like to see their data of when he became the best rider on the planet. Furthermore, I'd like them to explain how they almost f_d that assessment up so royally. He almost, almost when to team ______ and won them two Tour de France and got 5 GT podiums.

Just to be pedantic - "cancer weight loss", "Bilhaziria", "Unborn twin inside me", "Switched to olive oil" .... doesn't cut it. And if it is one of these... show peer-reviewed data that illustrates the effect of Bilhaziria. AND, don't then realease all this data and say "obviously it was just weightloss"... when for the last three years you've been saying Bilhaziria and nobody, including Froome can get the story straight on the timeline of that!

If Froome had those numbers in 2007, I could tell he's not a donkey, and I'm not Team Sky. He, at Tour weight, has the same VO2 max as Indurain did. He had plenty of room to lose fat from 18% (supposedly) to get to Tour weight, he has massive power output. Sky would have had efficiency numbers.

I want someone to answer how the Super Science-team was almost so blind. That's the data that would go a long way to convincing me, and I think many.

[rain dogs]

One more thing Joachim. And maybe you have insight into this. I want to know how the whole peloton now is SO thin. I mean, cyclists are skinny - I'm 180cm and 65kg - that's my natural, non-dieting, no-effort weight. But bloody hell. Froome, Wiggins, all these guys have legs like my arms and they don't lose power.

That to me is the new doping. This isn't Lemond/Coppi/Bahamontes skinny anymore. This is anorexic, with 0 power loss and that, to me, is fishy.

Imagine a mass of 5'8" guys dunking with the ease of the 7' guys in basketball... overnight. Taking away the "freak" advantages of the "freaks". It causes questions.

It's my analogy for 6'+ cyclists climbing faster than the best Colombians. Tiny frame, live at altitude, propensity to high power to weight. Colombians/Spaniards/some Italians and French. These guys are born with such a physical head start, why are they always playing catch-up in the mountains?

[soulspinner]

At the end of the day roughly 6 watts per kilo is human according to those who explain power/ weight. In the days gone by we have seen 7. Its surely possible he is clean now.

[bikingshearer]

. . . "cancer weight loss" . . .

In point of fact, that did make a significant difference in Lance's case. So did the fact that he simply wanted it more than anyone else and trained more, harder and smarter than anyone else (see, e.g., Ullrich, Jan). It wasn't just the most sophisticated doping program the cycling world had ever seen that put him over the top, it was a combination of factors.

Not defending Lance - I think he is a sociopath who deserves every bit of the sh*t storm he has brought down on himself and then some - but it does no good to say that doping accounted for 100% if his success when that clearly was not the case. To defeat the enemy, it helps to know the enemy for what he/she/it truly is.

As for Froome, I have no clue what the date means other than he could kick my ass blindfolded on a unicycle with one arm and one leg tied behind his back. Granted, beating me is not a high bar . . . .:o.

[R332]

Can someone tell me what this Peak Power number represents? Surely Froome can put out well north of 1000 Watts and likely over 1400 Watts peak/sprint.

Important figures from the publication of Chris Froome's physiological test

2015 test weight: 69.9kg
2015 Tour de France weight: 67kg
2007 test weight: 75.6kg
2015 VO2 max: 84.6
VO2 max correlating to 2015 Tour weight: 88.2
2007 VO2 max: 80.2
2015 peak power: 525 watts
2015 threshold (20-40 minutes): 419 watts
2015 watts-per-kilogram: 5.98
2015 Tour watts-per-kilogram: 6.25w/kg
2007 peak power: 540 watts
2007 threshold (20-40 minutes): 420 watts

[r_mutt]

In point of fact, that did make a significant difference in Lance's case. So did the fact that he simply wanted it more than anyone else and trained more, harder and smarter than anyone else (see, e.g., Ullrich, Jan).

what was this from, the Coyle study? wasn't that already proven false by numerous scientists? as far as LA training harder and wanting it more, how was this measured? how do we know he trained harder than everyone else. did LA tell us that he did? i don't believe this for one moment.

[Themalletor]

I don't understand how the recent testing really means anything. Who's to say Froome went as hard as he possibly could during testing when he knew the higher the numbers, the more suspicious everyone would become? Wouldn't it be in his best interest to go about 90% in these tests?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[benb]

Count me in the who cares and "it doesn't mean anything" camp.

He could be doped for both the tests for all we know.

[chiasticon]

I don't understand how the recent testing really means anything. Who's to say Froome went as hard as he possibly could during testing when he knew the higher the numbers, the more suspicious everyone would become? Wouldn't it be in his best interest to go about 90% in these tests?a fair question. but by the same argument, the very performances that make us question him could have been kept at bay too, and him still win the tour, by putting time into his rivals little by little as the tour progressed, not by several minutes all at once. does the very fact that he didn't do that, and showed his engine to everyone, mean that he's either very stupid to believe it won't be questioned, or truly doing nothing wrong so sees no harm in it?

[benb]

Do we even know 6w/kg is actually a legit figure? Did they actually discuss this # many years ago before all the really high quality dope arrived?