Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #1 
This is  where i fundamentally  do not understand   the discussion in cycling at all.
 Here  what I mean .
  For me it is not  what  he is doing in performance  but   why an how he is able to  do it.
 It  would be  very simple.
 Instead of looking at his relative  low  maximal HR  you have to look at his Cardiac output  so HR  x  ??? SV.
 Than we have a  direct feedback on his   fight  between   muscular  compression and cardiac  out put vaso-dilatation.
 This than  will give us a feedback on tHb  and the    information  how  he  maintains  blood flow  instead of creating occlusion trends.
 Than  you look how his   intermuscular ability  functions in his legs  so  when he  switches  from one     set of muscles  to  the other. Easy to do  with MOXY  and a BTS  SEMG  or  other options.
 Than   we simply look at his  VE  as  RF  x TV  and now see ho he shifts the O2  disscurve  and when  for  bio availability of  O2. Last but not  least  we see how he  may be able to shift   upper an lower  body supply in certain situations.
 Now we  can explain that it is physiological possible. What  is used here is as  et as you can see of matematcial speculations  and calculations   a which leave  the main question open, whether it is s possible  really from a physiological delivery and utilization  point of  view.
 The 26 sec all out is pretty much  what we see is  possible in SmO2  drop  before we hit a bottom line a and have to "recover"  some how.
 Now you can understand  where I  am really   look at a very different  way in performance  than what is done in this example.
 
 " Watts, VAM, V02 Max and heart rates

  Tim Kerrison usually stays out of the spotlight but seemed at ease as he read off a series of power numbers and Froome’s heart rates.

“We have a lot of data on our riders and the way we apply and use it, we see that gives us a competitive advantage. As in most industries, knowledge and intelligence is giving a competitive advantage,” he said.

“It’s difficult to indicate the exact start of the climb, so I’ve analysed the last 15.3km, which is an effort of about 41 and a half minutes. 

“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM.  We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent.  That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”

Kerrison warned against making assumptions with the data.

“Going from that to making some assumptions about Chris’s physiology requires a lot of assumptions about his relative aerobic and anaerobic consumptions on the climb, the percentage his V02 max that can be sustained and his efficiency as a rider. There’s also a margin of error in each estimates that compounds with each one. So to draw any conclusions about his physiology from time or climbing speed alone, there is a high margin of error.”

Kerrison also revealed Froome’s heart rate for the climb. The data that was leaked last week revealed that Froome’s heart rate remained surprisingly constant at around 160 per minute while climbing and attacking on Mont Ventoux in the 2013 Tour de France.    

“Chris had a gearing of 52x39 and 11x28, which allows a lowest gear of 38x28 and allows for the high cadence that he does. He averaged 97rpm. His average heart rate was 158. His max heart rate was 174. For Chris that equals his highest heart rate in a Grand Tour, certainly in last few Grand Tours he’s done. It also suggests he arrived relatively fresh into that point of the race and into the climb. Our objective in any Grand Tour is to arrive fresh to sustain a high level of performance. That’s one of the indicators that we use. We saw his maximum dropped over the course of a Grand Tour and its one of the things we aim to prevent. To put that into context, Chris’s maximum heart rate in 2013 was 168 compared to 174 is year and 171 in the 2014 Vuelta compared to 174 this year.”

Kerrison also revealed data about his attack on the climb to La Pierre-Saint-Martin.

“The attack I looked at was a period where power was over 450 watts and it was about a 24 seconds duration. There’s an average power of 556 watts, with a peak power of 929 watts. Again that’s just the power metre and does not include the 6 per cent adjustment (for O-symmetric).”

The highest power that Chris averaged for 10 seconds was 652 watts, which is 60 per cent of his max power. His average speed was 25.3km/h and his maximum speed was 27.7km/h.

“To put that in context, when you look at the four-minute period when the GC contenders were largely still there, the power was 449 watts and the VAM was 1777. Four minutes after the attack, the power was 435 watts. So after that initial attack, Chris’s power was lower than in the four minutes leading into the attack, yet he continued to ride away from Quintana and the others.”

Kerrison revealed that Froome’s power was slightly less on the climb to Plateau de Beille and acknowledged that many factors including gradient, temperature, wind direction and altitude can affect the data, even if the calculations factor in those factors     

Responding to questions
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #2 
Contador says he has no problem releasing power data

 I  absolutely understand  why. What  do the  wattage  and max  HR  days  really reveal  other than he pushed  on a given Day less wattage / kg body  weight and as  such was loosing time on the   cyclist  who pushed a higher wattage  per  kg  body  weight. We    know that without power data  as  he  was a head of the other one  so better performance  from A  to B ???
 The question is. What happened physiologically when he lost the ability to  hang on the  rear  wheel . What  caused the limitation?  was it a utilization problem  or was it a  delivery limitation. Which one  of the both , the better  athlete  was able to  either  deliver  just a little bit more  at that situation and or  was able to utilize just a little bit more  O2. So that made  the difference.
 Finding limiter and compensator.
 In top  cyclist  it is   very rare that the local muscle situation is the limiter,as  they   actually steel  O2  from vital organ systems  like  cardiac  or respiratory systems  and as  such  therefor  it is very often a  delivery limitation..
 They turn  so much  O2  metabolically into  energy,  that the CO2  production is  super high  and it is not anymore a limitation of O2 intake  but rather a  limitation of   of CO2   outflow  . So  hypercapnic  respiration is a possible limitation which than shows up as a  EIAH  and SpO2  values below  90 %. So if  the cyclists limitation is  190  L VE    and  when he moves 190 L VE  he can stay  normocapnic  or even has a chance  to  reduce in  short rest  situation CO2, than he can keep H + in balance.
 If the effort he pushes    needs to ventilate 230 L  VE  but  190 L VE is  his limitation he will  not be able to keep normocapnic  and as  such  has a short compensation  with O2  Diss curve shift to the right  but that is a time bomb  and than it is over  as he has a problem now to load  O2.
 We have  top athletes  improved  from 180 VE  to  over 250  L/VE  and now can sustain much  longer    higher loads.


 Here one of many   hints  towards this  with  the situation, that  the studies  often    do not explain  why. One reason is   as they  rarely look at the physiological rereactions the   respiration can create  like O2 Diss curve  shift. In fact many   physiologists I  talk  with never ever  take this into consideration.
 
BMC Physiol. 2004 May 6;4:9.

Endurance training of respiratory muscles improves cycling performance in fit young cyclists.

Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Whether or not isolated endurance training of the respiratory muscles improves whole-body endurance exercise performance is controversial, with some studies reporting enhancements of 50% or more, and others reporting no change. Twenty fit (VO2 max 56.0 ml/kg/min), experienced cyclists were randomly assigned to three groups. The experimental group (n = 10) trained their respiratory muscles via 20, 45 min sessions of hyperpnea. The placebo group (n = 4) underwent "sham" training (20, 5 min sessions), and the control group (n = 6) did no training.

RESULTS:

After training, the experimental group increased their respiratory muscle endurance capacity by 12%. Performance on a bicycle time trial test designed to last about 40 min improved by 4.7% (9 of 10 subjects showed improvement). There were no test-re-test improvements in either respiratory muscle or bicycle exercise endurance performance in the placebo group, nor in the control group. After training, the experimental group had significantly higher ventilatory output and VO2, and lower PCO2, during constant work-rate exercise; the placebo and control groups did not show these changes. The perceived respiratory effort was unchanged in spite of the higher ventilation rate after training.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results suggest that respiratory muscle endurance training improves cycling performance in fit, experienced cyclists. The relative hyperventilation with no change in respiratory effort sensations suggest that respiratory muscle training allows subjects to tolerate the higher exercise ventilatory response without more dyspnea. Whether or not this can explain the enhanced performance is unknown.

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #3 
Now here it is , where it is getting  funny.
 Wattage is the   most objective  way of looking at performance.
 That is  for  sure.
 But  how much  can we  "trust" the power meters ?
 The  questions we are getting on validation of  NIRS  . Hmm validation of power meters.

From cycling news:
 

One such question is how Froome, if averaging 5.78 watts per kilogram on La Piere-Saint-Martin as Sky claim, climbed so much quicker than those who supposedly outpowered him, like Robert Gesink (5.93 w/kg). This only leads to fresh speculation, as well as highlighting the fallibility of assessment by numbers and the many variables by which they are affected.



 Now  again  interesting, the only discussion out there is based on mathematical assumption  and  end result performance feedback like wattage/ kg    and so on.
 Not one single  at least  critical  question, how Mr. Gesink  creates his  result  and whether  perhaps  he  has a delivery limitation, when he  pushes  this versus  Mr. Froome  who may have no delivery limitation and therefor  can sustain the performance in a very different  way. Could be pretty easy to  check out. 2  NIRS  equipment  on a leg muscle   heavily involved in cycling and one on a  limited involved muscle and we have the fast and easy way to see :
 Delivery limitation versus  utilization limitation..
 In endurance sport the delivery  in this top athletes is what counts, in   explosive  and team sports  like ice hockey  the utilization and recovery  counts.
 Again and again.
 What is  endurance.
  Resistance of  fatigue  versus    ability to recover ?
 Here the full article    which  makes  us  thinking about   physics  versus physiology ?



Tim Kerrison, Sky’s head of athlete performance, addressed the media during the second rest day of the Tour de France to explain Froome’s numbers after a documentary on Stade 2 estimated some his values for the climb, with physiologist Pierre Sallet concluding that Froome either has an extraordinary physiology or is doping.

It is the nature of the beast that it is nigh on impossible to provide concrete proof that a rider is clean and this new information has only offered another small glimpse of a still incomplete picture, raising with it only fresh questions.

One such question is how Froome, if averaging 5.78 watts per kilogram on La Piere-Saint-Martin as Sky claim, climbed so much quicker than those who supposedly outpowered him, like Robert Gesink (5.93 w/kg). This only leads to fresh speculation, as well as highlighting the fallibility of assessment by numbers and the many variables by which they are affected.

How are we to know Gesink’s power meter is producing completely accurate data? Do his and others’ computers take into account fluctuations in weight from day to day? How can we have faith in Sky’s numbers, modified from the raw data because they claim osymetric chainrings overestimate power by six per cent?

The new numbers have failed to satisfy Sallet, who has revised his calculations in a fresh report published under the banner of his Athletes for Transparency body. Having originally taken Froome to weigh 71 kilograms, the 67.5kg figure given by Sky leads him to believe Froome averaged 408 watts over the climb, compared with his original 425 estimate and Sky’s claim of 414.

Whereas he based his fist conclusions on a Maximal Aerobic Power of 7.04 w/kg – which is a different measurement to Sky’s 5.78 average power output – he now believes the figure to be 7.2 w/kg. Given that he claimed that those who posted above 7 w/kg were known dopers, with images of Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich appearing on the Stade 2 screen, Sky’s new data has only bolstered his assertions.

He concludes again by stating three possibilities: either Froome has a unique physiological profile, he is using performance enhancing drugs, or he is using a motor in his bike.

Of course, this is nothing we didn’t know already and in many ways the debate has advanced little despite all the brouhaha that has surrounded the Tour de France maillot jaune.

Sallet has echoed many in calling for Froome’s information to be released in its entirety, from power numbers and biological passport data to medication history. Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford has welcomed the idea of the introduction of a power passport, which would be a step in the right direction but, given the myriad variables touched on above, seems years away from becoming a reliable yardstick.

Sky have tried to regain control of the narrative by releasing Froome’s numbers but only full transparency would come close to quelling the innuendo. Even then, a wider, reliable, system of analysis would need to be implemented to provide concrete answers.

Froome may or may not be doping but Sky’s actions have only underlined how far we are from being able to know for certain.

 

Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #4 
Is it just me  and my personal opinion  on Sport
  but if  I read this here :
 

UCI check Froome’s bike and five others for hidden motors at Tour de France

‘I’m happy they’re doing the checks,’ says Froome It is  hard to believe, that an organization  and  teams  and  individual athletes  have to  go  so far  to avoid " cheating "
What is  wrong  what causes this  situation  and where doe we go  from here.?
 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net