You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Haha, I was thinking 16 minutes at that power was ridiculous!! But then 400 watts for over hour just seems crazy to me as well. Thanks for highlighting my schoolboy mistake. I even had a quick look on my sufferfest passport to see my 5 second power to compare it. Going to go on the wattbike tonight and see what I can maintain for 16 seconds - yep I won't be 18 days into a Grand Tour or already climbed some tough mountains, but apart from that surely its a close scientific comparison?!? We do weigh the same afterall.....Even if I'm 5 foot 8 and he's 6 foot 1.
Yeah the 14 gels, not nice. I struggle with 2 gels on a long ride. But then again I prefer real food (by real food I mean cake).
Wonder if my cappuccino with one brown sugar in it is classed as isotonic?
Cycling Weekly from last week (28th June edition) has a whole article about nutrition science and how new research in “the understanding of carbohydrate uptake” has lead to new products, higher carbs per hour uptake etc.
That's interesting, because the conventional wisdom for carb drinks used to be that mixing them at too high a concentration wasn't good for your performance, and you should aim for around 7% carbohydrate solution. I once rode a marathon event where my wife was doing support, and I thought one of the bottles she handed me towards the end tasted a bit different. I later discovered that instead of carefully measuring a couple of small scoops of powder as recommended, she had just tipped about half the packet into the bottle. I did get a good result, so perhaps she was just ahead of the sports science research curve!
"
Cycling Weekly from last week (28th June edition) has a whole article about nutrition science and how new research in “the understanding of carbohydrate uptake” has lead to new products, higher carbs per hour uptake etc.
It’s actually quite an interesting piece, seems well researched."
Is there a link? I'd like to read that.
I just compared the Froome power and heart rate data against my commute to work today, trying to match a sector as closely as i could while allowing that he's a bit younger so his ave HR against mine as a % of max would mean his would be a bit higher.
Froome - 40mins at ave power 408W, ave HR 142, ave cadence 94
TOJV - 43 mins at ave power (est) 254W, ave HR 137, ave cadence 92
Apart from the fact he's 20kg lighter, and his 40mins saw him climb 1538VAM's (mine was 114) - do you think I could go pro 😉 ?
(disclosure, I had to sit down for a bit after getting here)
400W average for 75mins up Finestre on stage19 is mind boggling ~5.8W/Kg and shows how crap I am in comparison, ~3.2Kg.
The good news is, there is room for improvement, if my middle aged body is willing before it starts disintegrating! 😆
90 kilo power in a 70 kilo body is what defines a pro. About 10 of those kilos might be lost via diet. The rest is genetics I’d hazard. I’m the same weight but only 4.3 Watts/kg. The surprising thing is not the short power, but actually how low power can be over a whole stage. As someone with a power threshold of 2400 Watt-hours, I wish I could get that 1 Hour at 400 rather than 12 at 200!!
400W average for 75mins up Finestre on stage19 is mind boggling
Particularly when that was only part of one stage towards the end of a grand tour. I watched Boardman setting his record for the Athlete's Hour at Manchester, where he was estimated to have averaged around 400W. He looked absolutely buried at the end of one hour and could barely climb off the bike.
those numbers are overegged though, there's a little asterisk on the chart that says because he uses osymetric rings the power output is an estimated 6% too high. So if it says 400, it's only really 375.
Bit rubbish then.
because he uses osymetric rings the power output is an estimated 6% too high. So if it says 400, it’s only really 375.
Bit rubbish then.
That explains it, my asymmetric pedaling motion must mean my power, scaled out correctly like his, would be much higher, say 120-150% more since my pedal motion is really rubbish. On that basis i can hold 400W or so easy.
Still the case that you cannot take on board carbs at anything like the rate you can burn energy. An interesting fact I learned while looking into this a few years ago while dabbling in endurance racing is that you cannot train to get better carb uptake. So I can absorb carbs around as fast as Froome, but use energy far more, er, economically. Which makes the whole fuelling thing a bit easier for slow old gits.
I too initially thought it said 600 watts for 16 minutes and thought that can't be correct surely.I can maintain that for all of 20 seconds after about a ten minute warm up and fresh!
375 watts per hour is fairly insane though given it was a 6 hour stage.
I'd definitely have had him on the transition though...just
Just wanted to add thanks to those who've contributed heaps to this thread - some fascinating and considered writing in here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122
So who has read it all yet?
Team Sky have taken the unprecedented step of releasing a cache of data to BBC Sport detailing Chris Froome’s diet, power output and heart-rate from the Briton’s victory in May’s Giro d’Italia.
Interesting. A cople of thouights did occur to me on reading it. Firstly, what people would like to see is their evidence and argument (in detail). This could be viewed as a diversionary tactic, a well-sstablished PR ruse. Secondly, if they are that obsessive about what he consumes during a tour, when to puff on your inhaler might be in there as well?
Or in other words, what is interesting is what isn't in it and what they haven't yet made public (AFAIK).
Oh and thirdly, this is probably mainly to psych out their rivals in the Tour, they obviously think that if the oppo tries to do this, it will be in Sky's favour. At this stage, any opposing team would be foolish to change plan, but it will have cast a seed of doubt in some riders' minds that their preparation could be better.
when to puff on your inhaler might be in there as well?
Pointless really - with salbutamol you take it when you need it not at a set time/interval/period.
as an asthmatic I was told I can safely take up to 30 puffs in one go in the event of an attack. I’d be well over the Wada level..!
"when to puff on your inhaler might be in there as well?"
Normally it's within 10 minutes of starting a race. Since the maximum allowed regimen is clearly defined, you can take up to four puffs, four times a day, with no more than eight puffs within 12 hours. This might be morning, pre-race, after race, bed time, or it could be exactly every six hours so 6:00, 12:00, 18:00, 24:00 for chronic repeat dosing. Everyone is different and the regimen is ad libitem (up to the limit).
It might be surprising, but taking a dose immediately before a urine test will actually give a low reading compared with one after four hours. That's because most of what is absorbed by the body is from the gut not the lungs, and that takes a much longer time to be absorbed than the lung fraction.
Interesting to see the latest news reports on this - the scientist that originally developed the threshold admitted he got it wrong. The Wada threshold was developed using data from swimmers - who typically end their events being well hydrated, and he didn’t factor in other endurance sports where competitors typically end up dehydrated.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f
So the original scientist not only supported Froome in his appeal, but has also confirmed he has spent several years unsuccessfully lobbying Wada to change the threshold because of the error in the original science. So Froome’s had his reputation trashed because of a flawed test that Wada did nothing to address.
On a side note I thought it was very poor form by Howies when they released their t-shirt jibe at froome and haven’t bought anything from them since - I very much doubt they’ll have the maturity to admit they were wrong or apologise.
I’m looking forward to hearing the forum’s resident expert on sports doping and everything else explaining to us why the scientist and Wada are both wrong.
why the scientist and Wada are both wrong.
Well if he wants the test changed and wada don't, they can't both be right can they?
the scientist is right and wada wrong in using the test.
Because the test is bad Wada are right to clear froome.
If the wada are right, the scientist must be wrong.
But if the wada are right and the test is good the wada are wrong to clear froome.
Given we've already established that the scientist and Wada can't both be right. The only way this works is if neither is right.
What?
I think that one of the main issues here is that the WADA system seems a little broken.
But this is understandable, Team Sky's budget for last year was £26 million, the WADA budget to cover all sports and test all sports people competing in events overseen by them was £24 million, that is such a meagre budget that of course the tests are often going to be simplified or testing out of competition is going to be flaky (as in using swimmers metrics to test cyclists).
If you think how much the average footballer is on and the budget of a Premiership Club is, let alone Froome and the like, it is surprising when all involved supposedly want cleaner sport, that all pay so little into WADA.
We all want cycling to be clean, and no doubt it is a lot cleaner, but in my mind we cannot expect much to happen when regular testing cannot be done well.
(Strange how you have England football players tweeting they are off to get injection for "pain in their knee" before the next match..)
Thanks TiRed for adding to my understanding, glad that Tramadol seems to be going on to the banned list too.
I just compared the Froome power and heart rate data against my commute to work today...
Froome has a freakishly low heart rate. His max is something like 162, which is far from normal. Bearing in mind some of these guys can go over 200.
400W average for 75mins up Finestre on stage19 is mind boggling
I believe Dumoulin put out roughly the same power as Froome on the Finestre (only a couple of watts in it). The difference was in weight - Froome is a good few kilos lighter.
We all want cycling to be clean, and no doubt it is a lot cleaner, but in my mind we cannot expect much to happen when regular testing cannot be done well.
I actually think it's a good thing the process has been so closely scrutinised. We learn, and we move forward. I don't get why people see it as so bad.
I read somewhere that his resting heart rate is 35 bpm. Is that normal for these athletes?
I read somewhere that his resting heart rate is 35 bpm. Is that normal for these athletes?
I think it was 32 the morning before he started the Finestre...
Miguel Indurain famously recorded a heart rate of 28 bpm.
Mid-thirties is quite common for these guys.
I don’t get why people see it as so bad.
I do question my relief around Froome being found innocent and whether I am biased because he's British, or if I'm naive. I want to believe that the vitriol in the press and with commentators is just people wanting to be heard, and from social media and cycling fans is just people only listening to the headlines and not looking at the detail.
There's always the pre-Tour headlines that die down once the racing has started, but I'm not sure this one will go away.
It's depressing.
I'm not particularly a Froome, I don't particularly support British riders though it's nice to see them do well. I like to see good attacking racing by anyone, irrespective of team or nationality. We seem to be getting a good bit of that lately, including from Froome.
I spoke to my folks last night who live near the opening stages and they said there's a few people they know who are against Froome but have been against him for the last 4 or 5 years so it's just a new reason. Apparently, though, the police/gendarmes are warning people that if they step out of line it'll be a trip to the local station (in Vendee at least).
That said, they've said for the most part, people are just excited for the tour. I think sometimes people who follow sport closely lose perspective on how little it impacts the casual fan who treat it more like a panto than a serious sporting endeavour and are mostly there for the free saucisson and washing powder.
I reckon, though, the mountains could be a little interesting once the nutjobs have had a few bevvies
I do question my relief around Froome being found innocent and whether I am biased because he’s British, or if I’m naive.
This.
Say what you like about Sky's strangulation of the GT's but Froome himself is a pretty exciting guy to watch. Valverde and Bardet aside, I can't recall Quintana, Landa, Porte et al being so ballsy in attacking they way Froome has in recent years. Maybe they have tried but it's never stuck in the same way. He's only a bit British mind you!
To clarify from earlier post:
Scientist was right, then wrong, then right in stating that he got it wrong.
Wada were right to set a AAF limit, but wrong to base in on dodgy science but right to accept failings.
So WADA and scientist are right in saying the test in wrong. The UCI were right in not suspending Froome but wrong in letting the whole thing leak and fester for 10 months.
ASO are French.
My tinfoil-hat-wearing guess, as an aside, is that Lappartient authorised the leak as a final "va te faire foutre" to Cookson thinking that with supposedly double the limit, Froome would never be found anything other than guilty.
The ASO I don't have a problem with, apart from the fact that they're talking about damage to the sport when it's their bloody newspaper that is whipping the local cycling fanatics into a frenzy with hysterical headlines.
Just to clarify. It is not that the test is “wrong” per se, it is the fact that in some circumstances it will be unreliable in distinguishing inhaled from oral use.
One of those circumstances is when there is extreme dehydration. Also variability has been found to be much greater in such events, which makes discrimination harder.
Good result for science.
I thnk my position has moved from "serious doubter" in Froome to "all seems OK".
I hope this is not naive
The test is simply not fit for purpose in the case of cycling. WADA have known this for a long time yet chosen not to act until someone with the resources to expose their failings has come along. They have stood aside and let what they know full well may have been miscarriages of justice occur.
slowpuncheur...
To clarify from earlier post...
Ah sorry, that post was largely intended to read as contrived semantic word play gibberisloosely pretending to be science in response to "I’m looking forward to hearing the forum’s resident expert on sports doping and everything else explaining to us why the scientist and Wada are both wrong."
I should have realised that given some of the previous posts on this thread there was a good chance it might be taken to be serious. At least eddiebaby got it. I knew I should have answered his post with [scouse] Exaccli! [/scouse].
How did you know I'm from Merseyside? #stalkeralert
"
I thnk my position has moved from “serious doubter” in Froome to “all seems OK”.
I hope this is not naive
"
+1.
I think......
I don't know if any of you listen to the Cycling Podcast (which is ace) Jonathan Vaughters was interesting on there, really quite blunt, in that he said that the way Froome had been treated was inexcusable, but on the flip side, the way Team Sky and Brailsford had reacted was even worse he was really scathing of them.
He was very open being an ex-doper as to what exactly salbutomols benefits are and someone stated that actually the amount of money Sky probably poured into the mater and the studies they presented to WADA have probably assisted WADA as they could not fund it themselves.
The main thing that came from it is that prior tests were single episodes so those previously banned would of been tested once and the level been too high, with Froome because he is tested daily during Grand Tours, they have a lot more information with which to look at trends and patterns and establish why he showed as high
the way Team Sky and Brailsford had reacted was even worse
I think we should stop listening to ex dopers. I fail to see the problem with Sky or Brailsford's reaction. They simply said they would be presenting a defence and in the meantime allowed Froome to race as the rules and regs entitled him to do. Why was their reaction any worse than the UCI leaking the AAF in the first place and the likes of Lappartient and Hinault calling for Froome to stop racing.
UCI Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
Some detailed points for consideration.
The most relevant factors to the UCI’s decision were:
(i) First, obviously, WADA’s position:
WADA’s scientific department has access to information that UCI does not, including ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of salbutamol (which is – as confirmed by WADA Scientific Director–subject to considerable variations). In those circumstances, the UCI had to trust WADA’s assessment of whether or not Mr. Froome’s control amounted to an anti-doping rule violation as per the rules adopted by WADA. Pursuing the case when the world supervising authority in anti-doping – which is the entity enacting the rules and the tests – tells you that there is no case is simply not an option. In the UCI’s view, it would not be fair to continue the proceedings against Mr. Froome considering WADA’s position that he did not commit an anti-doping rule violation.
(ii) The second key element was the new WADA Technical Document of 2018 which entered into force on 1 March 2018 (WADA TD2018DL):
It is important to recall that according to WADA’s Technical Document (both in its version in force in September 2017 and today), only samples containing a concentration of salbutamol in excess of 1,200ng/ml are to be reported as abnormal results.
The new Technical Document implemented in March 2018 also now allows for the salbutamol Decision Limit to be increased above 1,200 ng/ml based on the specific gravity of the sample. This adjustment is intended to factor in the hydration status of the athlete which, as Professor Kenneth Fitch has publicly stated, was not contemplated when the salbutamol regime was first developed. In the course of the proceedings it also appeared that WADA would have been willing to accept a further adjustment based on the measurement uncertainty of the specific gravity.
(iii) Thirdly, Mr. Froome’s expert reports:
Having been tested 21 times during the Vuelta a España, Mr. Froome had access to the estimated concentration of salbutamol in his urine over three weeks. This allowed him to establish a significant variation in the way he excreted salbutamol, even at consistent, low, doses. Taking into account that he significantly increased his dose of salbutamol (to treat a chest infection) around the time of the test, it was accepted by WADA that this individual variation could explain the analytical results of his 7 September 2018 sample. Under these circumstances, a controlled pharmacokinetic study was unnecessary before closing the case, as Mr. Froome’s individual excretion could already be assessed from existing data.
(iv) The specific context of the substance and the case:
The reality is that salbutamol is permitted for therapeutic purposes and that Mr Froome uses salbutamol to treat asthma. In addition, Mr. Froome could expect to be (and was) tested on almost every day of the Vuelta a España. These contextual elements are not conclusive but were obviously elements to take into account in deciding to follow WADA’s position.
(v) New WADA commissioned studies:
During the proceedings, WADA confirmed that there are ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of salbutamol. As the studies were not yet finalised, neither UCI or Mr. Froome had access to them, but this was taken into account in accepting WADA’s position.
Since it is now public in The Times today, I can confirm that one member of this forum has seen the data in question. I wrote the expert report mentioned above.
I’m delighted that science has prevailed. Reading this thread has been interesting 😉
This place....!
As I said
This is STW, there is bound to be someone whose day to day job is research relating to the metabolism and excretion of inhaled corticosteroids in elite athletes.
🙂
I love this place, BTW...
ITV4 had a pretty in depth coverage of the whole thing in their first airing today. The first 20 minutes or so was devoted to it, various interviews. I think they were hoping to get most of it out of the way before the race commentary proper starts.
Good stuff though, quite in depth and they kept the emotion out of it.
I can also confirm that following Mr Froome's all clear that 2 days after the AAF on the Vuelta, the UCI asked to use our camper van at the finish of the Alto de Angrilu for doping control. The aforementioned rider used our facilities to provide a sample and I retained the contents of our toilet. I take a small sip of the contents prior to each training ride and my asthma has disappeared.
All of the above is true apart from the drinking piss bit.
So the original scientist not only supported Froome in his appeal, but has also confirmed he has spent several years unsuccessfully lobbying Wada to change the threshold because of the error in the original science.
WADA did eventually introduce an adjustment for specific gravity into the test (last year?) which is why the initial raw value reported for Froome was revised downward.
It appears there is quite a high prevalence of asthma among cyclists (BC reported 40% of the team before the 2004 Olympics) and I assume a significant number of these will be treated with Salbutamol. Given the reported limitations of the test, I'm still a bit puzzled about why there have been such a small number of AAFs reported. Are most people just using it at a very low dosage, and Froome was unlucky because he was using it particularly heavily?
Since it is now public in The Times today, I can confirm that one member of this forum has seen the data in question. I wrote the expert report mentioned above.
TiRed, Is it a protected document or is it now "public domain" ?
I'd love to have a read at it
The document is confidential. The conclusions have been circulated widely.
The reason why there have been so relatively few positives is because it requires the triple whammy of chronic repeat dosing (not the once a day at 200 ug), dehydration due to exercise AND mulitple testing. The multiple testing (21 times in a row for Chris Froome), compounds up a small probability into a much larger chance of producing at least one presumed adverse finding.
Previous WADA studies had looked at higher doses, controlled dehydration, but nobody had thought to factor in what we call multiplicity.
no offence, an' all, but it'd still have been nice to read it for myself
The only reason the document is confidential is because those with access to it are not disclosing it. Why are they not disclosing it? "It's confidential" is not an answer to that.
As said many times already there may be medical details about Chris Froome that don't belong in the public arena.
The reason why there have been so relatively few positives is because it requires the triple whammy of chronic repeat dosing (not the once a day at 200 ug), dehydration due to exercise AND mulitple testing. The multiple testing (21 times in a row for Chris Froome), compounds up a small probability into a much larger chance of producing at least one presumed adverse finding.
Thanks for explaining that. It sounds like Salbutamol testing is up in the air until WADA assess the new studies you mentioned and decide how it should be handled in the future. At the moment, it looks like you can present a defence if you have additional test results as context, but that would be difficult with a single result?
The aforementioned rider used our facilities to provide a sample and I retained the contents of our toilet. I take a small sip of the contents prior to each training ride and my asthma has disappeared.
All of the above is true apart from the drinking piss bit.
So you did retain the content of the toilet? Opportunities and all that... Estimated ebay value?
“At the moment, it looks like you can present a defence if you have additional test results as context, but that would be difficult with a single result?”
Sadly, that is correct. There are no “normal ranges” for endurance events such as stage races. The alternative is a PK study, which is unlikely to be able to replicate racing conditions. For sports such as track and field, such PK studies have been used successfully. The cycling equivalent would be track events where riders are well-hydrated and have short efforts.
In stage race land, it is a completely different world.
BTW pistonbroke, you owe me £1.90 as I laughed so much I ruined my copy of the paper with my coffee!
We did retain the contents of our toilet James but only until the next visit to the local emptying point, at that stage little did I know that the contents could have value. Also MrsPB was still in shock following the drive up the Angrilu in out 2.5m wide van trying to avoid knocking the thousands of spectators over the edge of the 3m wide road up the 25% gradient. Any mention of the experience was banned for several weeks.