The Froome Report
tailwindhome
Posts: 19,431
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
0
Comments
-
Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.0
-
ddraver wrote:Head over to the clinic to see a load of tin foilers discover quite how stunningly boring a proper scientific paper really is....
The concept of Abstract is the first thing that will throw them for a loop0 -
Full report available on the link at the right in PDF (35 pages) ICYMI0
-
bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.0 -
The 'read' and 'shared' metrics for this article are going to boost the journal's ranking
Correlation is not causation.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.
6-7% for race weight? You'd assume the test was done when he wasn't racing so still had a little bit of weight to lose?0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:ddraver wrote:Head over to the clinic to see a load of tin foilers discover quite how stunningly boring a proper scientific paper really is....
The concept of Abstract is the first thing that will throw them for a loop
There seems to be the normal thing where they automatically assume any power figure is FTP (to be fair some on there seem to know better).0 -
Is there an equivalent of clickbait in academia?Above The Cows wrote:The 'read' and 'shared' metrics for this article are going to boost the journal's rankingTwitter: @RichN950 -
Dinyull wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.
6-7% for race weight? You'd assume the test was done when he wasn't racing so still had a little bit of weight to lose?
It was only just after the Tour and the paper gives his mass as 71kg.
His race weight seems to be between 68-70kg but if we take 68kg and assume all the mass is lost from fat (paper gives the breakdown) then yes he would be just under 6% body fat by my calcs (5.8%). Although it is difficult to lose only fat mass when your % is that low already so in practice his lean mass would also decrease, and he wouldn't lose all 3kg from fat alone. So at his race weight I guess he'd be 6-7%. This would have some effect on his power output as well.0 -
Yes. Anything which gets more citations in other journals...RichN95 wrote:
Is there an equivalent of clickbait in academia?Above The Cows wrote:The 'read' and 'shared' metrics for this article are going to boost the journal's ranking0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
Yes. Anything which gets more citations in other journals...RichN95 wrote:
Is there an equivalent of clickbait in academia?Above The Cows wrote:The 'read' and 'shared' metrics for this article are going to boost the journal's ranking
This, but with the rise of social media and the now all new sexy 'altimetric' score designed to measure 'impact' beyond citations this article is clickbait altimetric heaven. It's already got a very high score.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Alex from RST has done a nice bit of analysis: http://alex-cycle.blogspot.co.uk/2016/0 ... again.html0
-
bobmcstuff wrote:Dinyull wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.
6-7% for race weight? You'd assume the test was done when he wasn't racing so still had a little bit of weight to lose?
It was only just after the Tour and the paper gives his mass as 71kg.
His race weight seems to be between 68-70kg but if we take 68kg and assume all the mass is lost from fat (paper gives the breakdown) then yes he would be just under 6% body fat by my calcs (5.8%). Although it is difficult to lose only fat mass when your % is that low already so in practice his lean mass would also decrease, and he wouldn't lose all 3kg from fat alone. So at his race weight I guess he'd be 6-7%. This would have some effect on his power output as well.
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Dinyull wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.
6-7% for race weight? You'd assume the test was done when he wasn't racing so still had a little bit of weight to lose?
It was only just after the Tour and the paper gives his mass as 71kg.
His race weight seems to be between 68-70kg but if we take 68kg and assume all the mass is lost from fat (paper gives the breakdown) then yes he would be just under 6% body fat by my calcs (5.8%). Although it is difficult to lose only fat mass when your % is that low already so in practice his lean mass would also decrease, and he wouldn't lose all 3kg from fat alone. So at his race weight I guess he'd be 6-7%. This would have some effect on his power output as well.
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
It's not like I plucked it out of thin air - I took the actual breakdown presented in the report and reduced the body fat to get to his race weight. Which took about 30 seconds. And I was pretty clear that it was only an estimate, I don't claim to have any special knowledge (beyond the ability to read numbers and calculate %...).
Yes I know Swart has covered Froome's high body fat % before - hence why I said "I know it's been covered extensively before", but that doesn't stop it being surprising.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Dinyull wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.
6-7% for race weight? You'd assume the test was done when he wasn't racing so still had a little bit of weight to lose?
It was only just after the Tour and the paper gives his mass as 71kg.
His race weight seems to be between 68-70kg but if we take 68kg and assume all the mass is lost from fat (paper gives the breakdown) then yes he would be just under 6% body fat by my calcs (5.8%). Although it is difficult to lose only fat mass when your % is that low already so in practice his lean mass would also decrease, and he wouldn't lose all 3kg from fat alone. So at his race weight I guess he'd be 6-7%. This would have some effect on his power output as well.
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
It's not like I plucked it out of thin air - I took the actual breakdown presented in the report and reduced the body fat to get to his race weight. Which took about 30 seconds. And I was pretty clear that it was only an estimate, I don't claim to have any special knowledge (beyond the ability to read numbers and calculate %...).
Yes I know Swart has covered Froome's high body fat % before - hence why I said "I know it's been covered extensively before", but that doesn't stop it being surprising.
He looks pretty fat.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Dinyull wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Would be interesting to see some other cyclists for comparison. They comment he has an unusual combination of high VO2 and high gross efficiency, but obviously because of the nature of the study there's no comparison.
And also the idea he has high efficiency with his riding style seems quite amusing. Just goes to show that appearance isn't everything...
Also 9.5% body fat still surprises (I know it's been covered extensively before) because apparently most tend to be 6-7%.
6-7% for race weight? You'd assume the test was done when he wasn't racing so still had a little bit of weight to lose?
It was only just after the Tour and the paper gives his mass as 71kg.
His race weight seems to be between 68-70kg but if we take 68kg and assume all the mass is lost from fat (paper gives the breakdown) then yes he would be just under 6% body fat by my calcs (5.8%). Although it is difficult to lose only fat mass when your % is that low already so in practice his lean mass would also decrease, and he wouldn't lose all 3kg from fat alone. So at his race weight I guess he'd be 6-7%. This would have some effect on his power output as well.
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
Hmmm, all researchers use their 'own calculations'. The only difference is that usually they provide a methodology which can be independently verified.0 -
PuttyKnees wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
Hmmm, all researchers use their 'own calculations'. The only difference is that usually they provide a methodology which can be independently verified.
My "methodology", if you can call it that, can be verified by anyone with a basic understanding of percentages.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:PuttyKnees wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
Hmmm, all researchers use their 'own calculations'. The only difference is that usually they provide a methodology which can be independently verified.
My "methodology", if you can call it that, can be verified by anyone with a basic understanding of percentages.
That rules out 52% of the U.K.0 -
Joelsim wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:PuttyKnees wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
Hmmm, all researchers use their 'own calculations'. The only difference is that usually they provide a methodology which can be independently verified.
My "methodology", if you can call it that, can be verified by anyone with a basic understanding of percentages.
That rules out 52% of the U.K.
And the other 56% aren't always right.0 -
ddraver wrote:Head over to the clinic to see a load of tin foilers discover quite how stunningly boring a proper scientific paper really is....
Well, must admit I found it quite a riveting read. I liked the intro bits about Lance and Indurain. The tin foil hat wearers will undoubtedly latch onto the unusual combination of high GE and VO2peak. It's suggested that there is usually an inverse relationship.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:PuttyKnees wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
Love the way people start making up their own calculations...
Btw if you look through Jeroen Swart's Twitter feed around the time Richard Moore's article appeared in the mag, he does address people decrying that Froome's body mass could really be that *high*
Hmmm, all researchers use their 'own calculations'. The only difference is that usually they provide a methodology which can be independently verified.
My "methodology", if you can call it that, can be verified by anyone with a basic understanding of percentages.
I dunno, these innovations in science can be hard to follow.0 -
The clinic are now saying it isn't scientific and it doesn't matter because nobody wanted these tests in the first place and they prove nothing.0
-
But it was never going to prove anything...
It was interesting, though.0 -
It was never going to prove anything but it's absolutely not what The Clinic wanted to hear.
So they'll ignore it and keep banging on about Leinders*, JTL, Millar, miracles, TUEs...
http://www.chronoswatts.com/img/mag/notnormal.pdf
*Despite the fact that even in Vayer et al's doping publication (link below) from 2013 the knowledge on Leinders then was "Geert Leinders, who is suspected to have supervised doping at Rabobank" rather than Sky employed someone who's been banned for life and absolutely everyone knew was extremely dirty in 2011 blah blah blah.0 -
The Clinic, the clinic, the clinic..... who gives a flying f*** what they think.“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”
Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut0 -
Dabber wrote:The Clinic, the clinic, the clinic..... who gives a flying f*** what they think.
WordIt's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
