Froome's Data
Comments
-
Jeroen Swart @JeroenSwart · 1 hr1 hour ago
@Scienceofsport larger data set will be on the @GSK_HPL website after 10am today. Then the full data set in the journal paper.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
i take it this "20-40 minutes" figure of 419//420 is FTP (which doesn't make sense at all)?
and the "peak power" 525 watts number is 5 minute maximal?
hooray for standardised testing
The standard FTP test is your 20 min best effort and then take threshold power as 95% of the output. Giving Froome either a 20 minute figure of 441 or an FTP of 399. Or approximately 100 watts more power and 6 kilos less weight than me. Bloody kids and their talent."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Here you go: http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/
Basically he's exactly the same athlete he was in 2007 - but not as a fat (75.6kg, 17% body fat in 2007). It seems he's still fatter than he looks (although I think Moore may have botched the calculations slightly there)
I'm amazed that anyone managed to ride as a pro carrying the same amount of body fat I currently have. The difference is that although I'm roughly the same height I'm 8kg heavier so he must have lacked muscle.0 -
I assumed the peak 525w was the average power during the last minute of his ramp test. Which is scary!
So, set off at X no. Watts, add, say, 20 per minute until you blow. Using the same method my peak was 370 in last lab test, but my 5 minute max 396 (on the road on a climb). It's the steady build up for several minutes before that knackers you put in the ramp test.Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
or how Vayer has managed to convince other people that Froome owes him the time of day.
Indeed.
So I asked him on Twitter.
And he replied:
@guycollierphoto just like @lancearmstrong my friend did. You ain't have photo of circuit de la Sarthe 99 ?
I have no idea what that means. So I just asked:
@festinaboy @lancearmstrong just after you were involved in systematic doping you mean?
Can't imagine Mr A getting involved.
Disappointingly he didn't reply to RichN95's brilliant question:
.@festinaboy I've found out you're not a leading sports scientist, but a girls' PE teacher. Would you like to buy some 2nd hand hockey kit?
Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0 -
Ufe @oufeh · 6m6 minutes ago
Another interesting number for Froome: 6.7kg pure fat when 3kg overweight,so his fat mass ratio during TdF was 3.7/67=5.5%
Ferrari was right“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
A very good article and I was glad of the name check in the third paragraph0
-
Ufe @oufeh · 6m6 minutes ago
Another interesting number for Froome: 6.7kg pure fat when 3kg overweight,so his fat mass ratio during TdF was 3.7/67=5.5%
Ferrari was right
Huge assumption there that the 3kg was pure fat.0 -
this is all far too technical for me but just so i'm clear, is this saying that he is just a natural talent and has the perfect physique for cycling ?0
-
this is all far too technical for me but just so i'm clear, is this saying that he is just a natural talent and has the perfect physique for cycling ?
Natural talent, yes (but not sure about 'perfect physique' - it's more about his 'engine'). It's also saying that his current power is consistent with what was shown back in 2007 but that he was way too heavy back then (to be a top contender).0 -
this is all far too technical for me but just so i'm clear, is this saying that he is just a natural talent and has the perfect physique for cycling ?
It says he has the engine to be capable of doing what he does (well, doh). It says he had an engine back in 07, but was a lard arse, compared to the skeletor he became. How he got that engine, is what the people who remain sceptical, say, combined with losing their shoot over seeing Zorzoli's name on that 2007 doco.0 -
Ufe @oufeh · 6m6 minutes ago
Another interesting number for Froome: 6.7kg pure fat when 3kg overweight,so his fat mass ratio during TdF was 3.7/67=5.5%
Ferrari was right
Note sure it's safe to assume he lost fat only, but he often is, unfortunately!0 -
thanks for clearing that up for me.
Now all they need to do it get him to look better on a bike
0 -
According to the article, Tucker would be suspicious of a VO2 max of 90 or above, whereas Vayer would have given Froome the benefit of the doubt if was shown to be thus...
I'm liking that Froome wants to do the VO2 test again, because he didn't feel fresh for this one.
With his figure of 84.6 (adjusted to 88.2 for his Tour weight), he wants another go at his top score.
Putting it firmly in the "suspicious" zone for Tucker would be a great "fukc you".0 -
According to the article, Tucker would be suspicious of a VO2 max of 90 or above, whereas Vayer would have given Froome the benefit of the doubt if was shown to be thus...
I'm liking that Froome wants to do the VO2 test again, because he didn't feel fresh for this one.
With his figure of 84.6 (adjusted to 88.2 for his Tour weight), he wants another go at his top score.
Putting it firmly in the "suspicious" zone for Tucker would be a great "fukc you".
sorry, does that mean Bush Tucker thinks Lemond was a cheat? :shock: :shock:0 -
None of this really a surprise is it. Though I did raise an eyebrow at this paragraph...Worrying he’ll be late for his 9am appointment, he has gone ahead, leaving his heavily pregnant wife to follow in a taxi. When the cab arrives, Michelle Froome emerges hauling a large, battered black box, inside which is her husband’s bike.0
-
None of this really a surprise is it. Though I did raise an eyebrow at this paragraph...Worrying he’ll be late for his 9am appointment, he has gone ahead, leaving his heavily pregnant wife to follow in a taxi. When the cab arrives, Michelle Froome emerges hauling a large, battered black box, inside which is her husband’s bike.
See, I've said he's a cad, all along0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19754905#p19754905]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:this is all far too technical for me but just so i'm clear, is this saying that he is just a natural talent and has the perfect physique for cycling ?
It says he has the engine to be capable of doing what he does (well, doh). It says he had an engine back in 07, but was a lard ars*, compared to the skeletor he became. How he got that engine, is what the people who remain sceptical, say, combined with losing their shoot over seeing Zorzoli's name on that 2007 doco.
With regard to scepticism, I think also we saw a step-change in performance (2011) that isn't mirrored by weight loss but at least he's put forward very strong evidence of early potential. Anyway, I think it was a good move by Froome - pleased he appears to have taken the initiatve on this.0 -
or how Vayer has managed to convince other people that Froome owes him the time of day.
Indeed.
So I asked him on Twitter.
And he replied:
@guycollierphoto just like @lancearmstrong my friend did. You ain't have photo of circuit de la Sarthe 99 ?
I have no idea what that means. So I just asked:
@festinaboy @lancearmstrong just after you were involved in systematic doping you mean?
Can't imagine Mr A getting involved.
Disappointingly he didn't reply to RichN95's brilliant question:
.@festinaboy I've found out you're not a leading sports scientist, but a girls' PE teacher. Would you like to buy some 2nd hand hockey kit?
There were some crackers last night on Twatters, but that is my fav0 -
Minor point, in the wirte up it says that Vayer works with some pro's, but wont say who. Is it Vayer calling for transparency? :?
Like others, I struggle with the whole 'Who the f**k does Vayer think he is?' thing 2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
That was genius.
On the plus side Vayet called me laughable. As my wife could tell you that's not news.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0 -
or how Vayer has managed to convince other people that Froome owes him the time of day.
A few things, really. 1. Vaughters has held him up in the past as an ok guy, so some take that as validation. 2. There's a little cabal that includes Bush Tucker and the veloclinic crank (cant be arsed to look up his actual name) that treat him as an equal, so for people who buy into those guys, thats validation again. 3. his nonsense gets published in papers like Le Monde, who are perennially throwing shoot at cycling and at the Tour, what with l'Equipe being a big rival paper, and 4. some work along the psyche that it takes a cheat to sniff out a cheat.
And 5. cos it downright suits some people to buy into his fruit loop ramblings0 -
That was genius.
On the plus side Vayet called me laughable. As my wife could tell you that's not news.
We do need to establish whether his 'lab' that he demands Froome go to for the only reelz credible tests, is
1. a B&Q shed, last creosoted in 1990
2. his garage (just step over the lawnmower, you'll be fine)0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19754905#p19754905]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:this is all far too technical for me but just so i'm clear, is this saying that he is just a natural talent and has the perfect physique for cycling ?
It says he has the engine to be capable of doing what he does (well, doh). It says he had an engine back in 07, but was a lard ars*, compared to the skeletor he became. How he got that engine, is what the people who remain sceptical, say, combined with losing their shoot over seeing Zorzoli's name on that 2007 doco.
With regard to scepticism, I think also we saw a step-change in performance (2011) that isn't mirrored by weight loss but at least he's put forward very strong evidence of early potential. Anyway, I think it was a good move by Froome - pleased he appears to have taken the initiatve on this.
True. And for me personally, a lot of my scepticism around him stems from that 2011. However, that aint gonna stop me from laughing at Tucker, Vayer and c.0 -
-
Ufe @oufeh · 6m6 minutes ago
Another interesting number for Froome: 6.7kg pure fat when 3kg overweight,so his fat mass ratio during TdF was 3.7/67=5.5%
Ferrari was right
Note sure it's safe to assume he lost fat only, but he often is, unfortunately!
I think the point is that it wasn't the silly numbers being quoted at the time.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Ufe @oufeh · 6m6 minutes ago
Another interesting number for Froome: 6.7kg pure fat when 3kg overweight,so his fat mass ratio during TdF was 3.7/67=5.5%
Ferrari was right
Note sure it's safe to assume he lost fat only, but he often is, unfortunately!
I think the point is that it wasn't the silly numbers being quoted at the time.
Yeah, fair enough. The guy does know what he's talking about.0 -
Disappointingly he didn't reply to RichN95's brilliant question:
.@festinaboy I've found out you're not a leading sports scientist, but a girls' PE teacher. Would you like to buy some 2nd hand hockey kit?
RichN95, you are the absolute bollocks
Hat.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
