# TdF '15 Doping Discussion Thread. **WARNING SPOILERS**



## PJay

Mods, delete if this breaks rules.

-I am posting this thread as a central place to discuss TdF 2015 doping suspicions and news.

While most of our doping discussion is Yay-hoo armchair ignorance, the ability to have good discussion is relevant to enthusiast-enjoyment of TdF, including the doping dimension. And, it is better if timely - and so including "spoilers."

Maybe we can post here stage by stage as we suspect performances reminiscent of those amazing fly-aways from the days of yore by the likes of Landis, Vinokourov, Rasmussen, etc.


----------



## 202cycle

Already spoiled!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/froomes-power-data-348402.html
But thank you for announcing your spoiler.


----------



## PJay

if froome is doping, he might eventually get caught.

so, is 2nd the new 1st?

is it now a great idea to covet 4th place overall?


----------



## DrSmile

If "Sir" Wiggo hadn't been knighted or tried to break (and did break) the hour record I have a sneaking suspicion he would have blown Sky's cover by now and come clean. I still think he will be the first one to admit that Sky has a "program." That could be 5, 10, or 50 years from now though.


----------



## ibericb

So Brailsford told the press, when announcing the suspected data hack, that "the data was stolen by critics of Team Sky in order to discredit Froome's performances and raise suggestions of doping."

There's something clearly missing in this story. How in the world would Brailsford, or anyone associated with Sky, have any idea why the data was stolen?


----------



## kiwisimon

ibericb said:


> There's something clearly missing in this story. How in the world would Brailsford, or anyone associated with Sky, have any idea why the data was stolen?


What other possible motivation would there be? He makes a pretty good guess. That's what 99% of people would think.


----------



## J.R.

ibericb said:


> So Brailsford told the press, when announcing the suspected data hack, that "the data was stolen by critics of Team Sky in order to discredit Froome's performances and raise suggestions of doping."
> 
> There's something clearly missing in this story. How in the world would Brailsford, or anyone associated with Sky, have any idea why the data was stolen?


This strikes me as a classic "poisoning the well" example on Brailsford's part.


----------



## spade2you

DrSmile said:


> If "Sir" Wiggo hadn't been knighted or tried to break (and did break) the hour record I have a sneaking suspicion he would have blown Sky's cover by now and come clean. I still think he will be the first one to admit that Sky has a "program." That could be 5, 10, or 50 years from now though.


I highly doubt there will be too many guilty consciences. As long as nobody is caught in the act, "nothing" happened.


----------



## ibericb

kiwisimon said:


> What other possible motivation would there be? He makes a pretty good guess. That's what 99% of people would think.


I don't see how power data can be turned into anything reasonably showing the use of PED's. Reason - finding out how Sky, and Froome in particular train. That was the running commentary on NBCSN this morning - that there would be a lot of people who would like to know how they have been training. 



J.R. said:


> This strikes me as a classic "poisoning the well" example on Brailsford's part.


That was my initial reaction too. It seems to the greatest concern at Sky is that someone will actually come up with a plausible basis for a serious doping allegation. I'm not sure it much matters. At the end of the day they still need some real evidence, not someone's SWAG analysis.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Today's stage was "Extremely" reminiscent of the USPS days ... Froome rides away at super high cadence, Porte sprints away easily to take 2nd and a third rider in the top 10 on the day ... all on the first major climb of the race. 

Sky controlled the race, controlled the climb and acted like it was no big deal.


----------



## David Loving

Very Lance-like. "Are you going to believe what I tell you, or your lying eyes?"


----------



## spookyload

We were in 2000, it just took time to come out. Does sky really think we are so dumb to think they have found the clean fountain of youth that nobody else knows?


----------



## Cromolyman

I've been a rabid fan since the LeMond era. Today's stage takes me back to 1996. That was the Tour that I first noticed a rider (Bjarne Riis) with the ability to leave others behind in the mountains like they were riding stationary bikes. 

It just looks so familiar. "High cadence" as the apologetic also sounds so familiar.


----------



## David Loving

Yes, they do think that.


----------



## David Loving

Think maybe the "hack" is a cover story to show inflated data later to cover doping?


----------



## robdamanii

Today was a completely disgusting display of how dirty Sky is.

UK Postal indeed. And the constant "super high cadence" bullsh*t has GOT to stop....


----------



## spade2you

Wookiebiker said:


> Today's stage was "Extremely" reminiscent of the USPS days ... Froome rides away at super high cadence, Porte sprints away easily to take 2nd and a third rider in the top 10 on the day ... all on the first major climb of the race.
> 
> Sky controlled the race, controlled the climb and acted like it was no big deal.


I don't know of too many (any?) instances where USPS was able to send another rider up the road to take up more time bonuses when Lance already got the win and plenty of distance. 

Then again, Astana was also very dominant last year. Nibali doesn't seem as strong with Astana under a microsope these days.


----------



## BacDoc

robdamanii said:


> Today was a completely disgusting display of how dirty Sky is.
> 
> UK Postal indeed. And the constant "super high cadence" bullsh*t has GOT to stop....


I started the thread "Chris Froome at the Dauphine"

His last 2 mountain stage victories and performance were " unbelievable"

By contrast, maybe TJ and BMC are "unbelievably" clean?

An oxymoron if I ever saw one.


----------



## spade2you

robdamanii said:


> UK Postal indeed. And the constant "super high cadence" bullsh*t has GOT to stop....


...but this is high cadence with asymetrical chainrings. There's a difference.

...yeah, I'm not buying it int the least.


----------



## robdamanii

BacDoc said:


> I started the thread "Chris Froome at the Dauphine"
> 
> His last 2 mountain stage victories and performance were " unbelievable"
> 
> By contrast, maybe TJ and BMC are "unbelievably" clean?
> 
> An oxymoron if I ever saw one.


Doubtful. See GVA's disaster earlier in the year that he narrowly avoided.

At this point, the only guy I expect to be clean is the lantern rouge, and even HE'S snorting coke.

In all seriousness, just look at Sky. Rodgers was nearly unbeatable when he was there, now a shell. Porte was up and coming, but Sky turned him into an alien mutant. Froome goes from getting dropped while at Barloworld to outclimbing the best climber in the world (same with Porte.) How does that not arouse suspicion?


----------



## Fireform

What really gives me pause is "G" Thomas outclimbing Contador. WTF?

What I want to know is, how did they fool David Walsh?


----------



## spade2you

Fireform said:


> What really gives me pause is "G" Thomas outclimbing Contador. WTF?
> 
> What I want to know is, how did they fool David Walsh?


"Technically" Contador is probably a little too tired from his Giro win. Contador has beaten Froome in the Vuelta a few times. 

Sky's dominance is nothing new. Perhaps the forum was a little too fixated on our frience Lance at the time.  Part of me wonders if that was part of the strategy. Lance gets into a fender bender and doping is alive as it ever was.


----------



## penn_rider

True dat, and most of those left behind were under scrutiny at some point.


----------



## Local Hero

Chris Froome commits to independent testing to prove he is clean after Tour de France - Telegraph

*after*


----------



## 9W9W

*Skyence Fiction*

Yeah, today was something else. Skyence fiction. Froomdurain.

High cadence and not pretty technique should be am RBR drinking game. 

The way the just pull away from the best climbers in the world was something else. Almost as bad as watching Nibbles power through the tour last year breathing through his nose the entire time. Here, he's drooling on his chin dying on the bike. Did you guys catch the interview with G.Thomas? "I feel great! Was climbing with Valverde today! wow, a fun day"...hajfajv!.... Where is everyone else? Oh, they're still riding? Oh, I see... hajfajv!....

Doesn't it hit competitor morale to know you're riding against guys on a program?


----------



## 55x11

robdamanii said:


> Today was a completely disgusting display of how dirty Sky is.
> 
> UK Postal indeed. And the constant "super high cadence" bullsh*t has GOT to stop....


Exactly. This is what I kept thinking - Postal was never THIS dominant, SO obviously, AND THIS early.


----------



## Marc

55x11 said:


> Exactly. This is what I kept thinking - Postal was never THIS dominant, SO obviously, AND THIS early.


And then in post-race interviews...all the Sky riders looked and talked like they were fresh as a daisy, not at all like men who had just ground themselves to the limit for half an hour.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> What really gives me pause is "G" Thomas outclimbing Contador. WTF?


I think we're seeing a clean Nibbles and Contador. 


> What I want to know is, how did they fool David Walsh?


Right. Walsh is certainly holding Sky to a different standard, and Froome is faster than Armstrong.


----------



## AJL

55x11 said:


> Exactly. This is what I kept thinking - Postal was never THIS dominant, SO obviously, AND THIS early.


+1. First I was reminded of Postal, but the only one in Postal who could push this hard was LA. Porte and Thomas were also "amazing" on the stage. Poor Geraint Thomas complained a bit about being held up by Tejay - freaking A!


----------



## sneakyracer

spookyload said:


> We were in 2000, it just took time to come out. Does sky really think we are so dumb to think they have found the clean fountain of youth that nobody else knows?


Today was absurd. SKY could have sandbagged a little so as not make it so obvious. In the interview Froome said he was a bit surprised... I think he knows he over did it today.


----------



## SFTifoso

Once Porte leaves he will plummet, and get dropped by TJV. Too bad these guys won't get caught until years later, after the UCI has made it's money. The UK is a hot bed for cycling right now, no way the UCI busts them right now, not when there's money to be made.

Without Sky, this would be a really exciting tour. Now we're just gonna see froome win all the mountain stages. My only hope is these "hackers" post everything online.


----------



## BacDoc

SFTifoso said:


> Once Porte leaves he will plummet, and get dropped by TJV. Too bad these guys won't get caught until years later, after the UCI has made it's money. The UK is a hot bed for cycling right now, no way the UCI busts them right now, not when there's money to be made.


Some great points. Sky has deep pockets and the cycling market in UK is ripe for profit.

Pretty sure nobody wants to rock the bus, but everybody wants to keep the bus going and the money flowing. Can't say I blame them!


----------



## nocker

Playing devil's advocate in order to make this a discussion rather than the nailed on definite guilty post after post..

for all the 'sky' dominance yesterday, they actually sat behind movistar who did all the chasing and initial kick to drop a lot of contenders, incl bertie and nibbles.. 

as for 'trackies' suddenly becoming climbers, for a start it's not like G has suddenly turned to the road, and physiology aside, actually team pursuit is all about maintaining power output whilst on the ragged edge and riddled with pain for a defined sustained period, kind of like climbers

..and if no one is allowed to improve, why are most GC contenders expected to be around late 20's ? why aren't the 23/24 year old's walking into road cycling as GC contenders ?

..by the same token, why is everyone in the autumn of their career measured against the peak of their career ? 

why is no one questioning how Quintana came from nowhere and decides to head off to the columbian outback before every grand tour with limited testing

I absolutely expect Sky know every rule and every legal and non-legal, and play around in the 'grey', same as every team has the opportunity to, but systematic programmes, really ?

I can understand the omerta back in the lance days as everyone was on it but surely someone like tiernan locke would have bleated by now, that or the whole peleton is back on it, and therefore it's even racing still..

just some thoughts 'tis all


----------



## asdf1234

Local Hero said:


> I think we're seeing a clean Nibbles and Contador.


I think what we're seeing is the micro-dosing era butting up against whatever Sky are doing. They seem smugly self assured that they won't get caught so it must be some next-level gear they're on. Why else would Froome welcome overnight surprise tests. He no longer needs to micro-dose overnight like everyone else. Something is fishy when your super-domestique crushes LAs best time up the Madone.


----------



## HeluvaSkier

Anyone know if FG-4592 is detectable or tested for yet?


----------



## ibericb

HeluvaSkier said:


> Anyone know if FG-4592 is detectable or tested for yet?


Yes to both.


----------



## HeluvaSkier

ibericb said:


> Yes to both.


Interesting. I had not seen that or heard of anyone busted for using it yet.


----------



## Local Hero

Is Armstrong to blame for accusations against Froome? 

Lance Armstrong admits blame for Chris Froome's doping questions | Cycling News | Sky Sports


----------



## jaggrin

When Armstrong raced they were all doping and he would beat them by four minutes on the climbs. If one is doping they all are and personally I could care less. I want to see an exciting bike race. When I watch football I don't sit around wondering if this one or that one is on the juice.


----------



## ibericb

Local Hero said:


> Is Armstrong to blame for accusations against Froome?


After watching the video, I believe his answers are both sincere and honest, and I think he hit the nail on the head.

When Armstrong came along for a number of years it was widely believed he was blessed physiologically. He became a lab rat in Colorado for the exercise physiologists, and they were both dazed amazed. After the realization that his exceptional performance was drug induced we were all left with an image of what a well-doped cyclist looks like in competition. When Froome now looks much like Armstrong did then, the connection gets made and the questions and accusations begin to fly.

If Froome and Team Sky are indeed clean, it's an unfortunate and sad connection to have made. If it hadn't been for Armstrong the issue would not be raised. 

Until there is something credible and indicative of the use of PED's I'm going to believe they are clean, and what we've seen is in truth what many of us thought we were seeing in Armstrong before the real story was revealed. Without something other than he looks like Lance did then, I will view him as a physiological marvel who has turned his gift into a competitive advantage through training and nutrition well grounded in the best pertinent and contemporary science. I will openly admit it is a biased belief because I want it to be so.


----------



## FujiSteve

Marc said:


> And then in post-race interviews...all the Sky riders looked and talked like they were fresh as a daisy, not at all like men who had just ground themselves to the limit for half an hour.



Garbage, nonsense. Have you even looked at the post race interviews?

Here's Porte, puffing and panting all the way through.
Post race: Richie Porte | Cycling

Doesn't look "Fresh as a Daisy" to me.


----------



## love4himies

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tonight's interview with Ross Tucker/<a href="https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport">@Scienceofsport</a> on Chris Froome and his power data. 
<a href="https://t.co/r2G33Ee95A">https://t.co/r2G33Ee95A</a></p>— Off The Ball (@offtheball) <a href="https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/621404920814641152">July 15, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This discussion states Froomes climb yesterday was estimated to be 6.2w/kg.


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> This discussion states Froomes climb yesterday was estimated to be 6.2w/kg.


Didn't look at the discussion, but that is well within the typical range for a world class cyclist. There's a good analytical discussion on the subject, done 19 months ago, here.


----------



## love4himies

nocker said:


> Playing devil's advocate in order to make this a discussion rather than the nailed on definite guilty post after post..
> 
> for all the 'sky' dominance yesterday, they actually sat behind movistar who did all the chasing and initial kick to drop a lot of contenders, incl bertie and nibbles..
> 
> as for 'trackies' suddenly becoming climbers, for a start it's not like G has suddenly turned to the road, and physiology aside, actually team pursuit is all about maintaining power output whilst on the ragged edge and riddled with pain for a defined sustained period, kind of like climbers
> 
> ..and if no one is allowed to improve, why are most GC contenders expected to be around late 20's ? why aren't the 23/24 year old's walking into road cycling as GC contenders ?
> 
> ..by the same token, why is everyone in the autumn of their career measured against the peak of their career ?
> 
> why is no one questioning how Quintana came from nowhere and decides to head off to the columbian outback before every grand tour with limited testing
> 
> I absolutely expect Sky know every rule and every legal and non-legal, and play around in the 'grey', same as every team has the opportunity to, but systematic programmes, really ?
> 
> I can understand the omerta back in the lance days as everyone was on it but surely someone like tiernan locke would have bleated by now, that or the whole peleton is back on it, and therefore it's even racing still..
> 
> just some thoughts 'tis all


The only thing that make me believe in Quintana is his hard background as a child riding a bike 16km to school, living at 10,000 ft above sea level and towing his sister up the Andes on what I can only imagine were dirt roads. That's got to be some tough training. Plus he has the physique of a climber.

I think GC contenders are recognized in their low 20's, but lack the tactical experience needed in a Grand Tour. Plus the pressure that is put on a GC requires maturity and focus.

If I was a team that wanted systemic doping, I wouldn't be telling every single rider what each other was getting. Nor would I put every rider on the "program". I think everybody has learned from the tell all autobiographies that have since come out and tattling that has gone on. I know if I was doping, I wouldn't be telling a soul.


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> Didn't look at the discussion, but that is well within the typical range for a world class cyclist. There's a good analytical discussion on the subject, done 19 months ago, here.


Dr. Ross Tucker, stated that a 6.2w/kg is Lance area cycling. The 388 that Froome did up the Ventoux, is suspicious, but is not proof of doping.


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> After watching the video, I believe his answers are both sincere and honest, and I think he hit the nail on the head.
> 
> When Armstrong came along for a number of years it was widely believed he was blessed physiologically. He became a lab rat in Colorado for the exercise physiologists, and they were both dazed amazed. After the realization that his exceptional performance was drug induced we were all left with an image of what a well-doped cyclist looks like in competition. When Froome now looks much like Armstrong did then, the connection gets made and the questions and accusations begin to fly.
> 
> If Froome and Team Sky are indeed clean, it's an unfortunate and sad connection to have made. If it hadn't been for Armstrong the issue would not be raised.
> 
> Until there is something credible and indicative of the use of PED's I'm going to believe they are clean, and what we've seen is in truth what many of us thought we were seeing in Armstrong before the real story was revealed. Without something other than he looks like Lance did then, I will view him as a physiological marvel who has turned his gift into a competitive advantage through training and nutrition well grounded in the best pertinent and contemporary science. I will openly admit it is a biased belief because I want it to be so.


I don't agree that Lance himself is to be blamed, but the whole 1999-2005 era of cycling is to blame, including doctors, managers and the riders themselves.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Didn't look at the discussion, but that is well within the typical range for a world class cyclist. There's a good analytical discussion on the subject, done 19 months ago, here.



I call some BS on that analysis. The "chart" the guy references in the article is from a hack site. I believe one twitteratti calculated Froome's estimated VO2 max at 90 ml/kg/min, which is outrageous. 

Further, veloclinic's analysis of the pVAM and DpVAM shows that (no surprise) Froomestrong is on par with tour winners from 02-07. Funny thing about those guys....

Froome (and several others on Sky) are as clean as a pig in sh*t.


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> Dr. Ross Tucker, stated that a 6.2w/kg is Lance area cycling. The 388 that Froome did up the Ventoux, is suspicious, but is not proof of doping.


A key issue is for how long at any given level of output. In his book, reportedly Froome shares that his 30-min maximum power just before the 2013 TdF was measured at 459 watts. If that were a Coggan 20 minute FTP value, then at 72 kg it would represent ~6.38 W/kg. Who knows if that's real or not, or how that relates to a Coggan 20-min FTP.

The power profile tables commonly seen originate from Coggan, and I believe they date to before 2008. An interesting question all of this raises is are they still representative with the advances that have occurred in exercise physiology in recent years, and the ensuing changes in training programs?


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> I call some BS on that analysis. The "chart" the guy references in the article is from a hack site. I believe one twitteratti calculated Froome's estimated VO2 max at 90 ml/kg/min, which is outrageous.
> 
> Further, veloclinic's analysis of the pVAM and DpVAM shows that (no surprise) Froomestrong is on par with tour winners from 02-07. Funny thing about those guys....
> 
> Froome (and several others on Sky) are as clean as a pig in sh*t.


Which chart are you referring to?


----------



## bluelena69

HeluvaSkier said:


> Interesting. I had not seen that or heard of anyone busted for using it yet.


Now race walking. That is one activity I find to be too humorous to take seriously. During the 2012 Olympics, race walking was on the television and my then 8 year old son asked me- in all seriousness- why all of those people on TV were rushing to get to the bathroom. It was hilarious.


----------



## HeluvaSkier

bluelena69 said:


> Now race walking. That is one activity I find to be too humorous to take seriously. During the 2012 Olympics, race walking was on the television and my then 8 year old son asked me- in all seriousness- why all of those people on TV were rushing to get to the bathroom. It was hilarious.


Completely agree... I wasn't even aware they tested those athletes. I recall watching a few of them collapse, unable to continue the race. It was truly a riot to watch. ...now back to our regularly scheduled U.K. Postal discussion...


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> I don't agree that Lance himself is to be blamed, but the whole 1999-2005 era of cycling is to blame, including doctors, managers and the riders themselves.


You're right, it wasn't just Lance. But, as he noted in the interview, the comparisons were being made to Lance based on Froome's style, down to and including his cadence. I believe Lance was accepting responsibility for the association of the very striking resemblance of Froome's style and appearance with that associated with a well-doped top competitor.


----------



## Fireform

It's a function of how long the effort is that determines whether it is credible or not. I can produce that kind of power, too, but not for 40-odd minutes.


----------



## SFTifoso

Most people just want to see a close GC competition. Sky took that away from us, and we're pissed. I just want the yellow jersey to be passed around like a football. I don't want see Chris Froome not even allow Valverde gain 1 second on him, like we did on stage 11's finish.


----------



## il sogno

It's interesting how G. Thomas and Froome Sky interviews today (Stage 11) mentioned that they were tired. It's as if they are trying to deflect the doping suspicions over yesterday's stage.


----------



## coldash

So when Froome says he's not doping, he's lying 'cos that's what Lance said. When he does well in a stage, that is because he's doping. When he says he's tired, that's to cover that he's doping and when (if) he has a bad day, that's because he's fragile. When he drops Quintana, that's proof he's doping. When Tejay drops Contador, JRod, Uran, that's not suspicious. 

Fine, I've got the idea now.

In the meantime FranceTelevision are covering the whole stage live today. I'm off to watch some cycling.


----------



## ibericb

Yep, that's pretty much it. It's the same old conspiracy theory, updated for 2015.


----------



## nocker

love4himies said:


> The only thing that make me believe in Quintana is his hard background as a child riding a bike 16km to school, living at 10,000 ft above sea level and towing his sister up the Andes on what I can only imagine were dirt roads. That's got to be some tough training. Plus he has the physique of a climber.


Yep and tbh I'm not really casting aspersions with mine, just in that devils advocate way trying to point out some of the one rule for one etc going on.. Agree, and actually Froome very similar, grew up in kenya at quite high altitude, used to train by holding his back brakes on for 20 mins at a time to simulate big climbs etc

My one big reservation with Froome was the Barloworld time, when as a young/new professional his team mates were doping and as an impressionable new pro you wonder what he was expected to do.. and whilst I do think he's clean at the moment, as we've seen with returning sprinters (athletics) there's increasing evidence that historic doping, especially around HGH, steroid related (rather than blood/endurance doping) continues to improve performance way after the athelete has stopped regular use.. If you take someone already physiologically built for certain athletic tasks (like climbing) and then put them on a programme to enhance those physiological attributes when younger, if they're long term changes, he could effectively be clean as a whistle now having managed to 'get away with' some kind of programme earlier in his career.. however, that is a bit far-fetched, but something that I think isn't discussed as a rule (over any rider) in cycling doping circles because so much is focussed on endurance/blood doping.



love4himies said:


> I think GC contenders are recognized in their low 20's, but lack the tactical experience needed in a Grand Tour. Plus the pressure that is put on a GC requires maturity and focus.
> 
> If I was a team that wanted systemic doping, I wouldn't be telling every single rider what each other was getting. Nor would I put every rider on the "program". I think everybody has learned from the tell all autobiographies that have since come out and tattling that has gone on. I know if I was doping, I wouldn't be telling a soul.


Re: the contenders piece, I agree but think there's a whole lot more too, training, strength, core and so on will all improve, now I agree if someone comes out of nowhere alarm bells should go off, but steady progression, especially out of a different discipline like mountain biking or track shouldn't just instantly equate to doping

But the riders would be talking surely ? as much as its a team sport, they're still in for themselves individually and competitively so I don't think a team could just focus on rider by rider without the others knowing what was happening..

Anyways, good points and thanks for not just going with the obvious !!


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> You're right, it wasn't just Lance. But, as he noted in the interview, the comparisons were being made to Lance based on Froome's style, down to and including his cadence. I believe Lance was accepting responsibility for the association of the very striking resemblance of Froome's style and appearance with that associated with a well-doped top competitor.


True. That's the sad part about being the most famous person.

I too thought Lance was being sincere. I respect that he didn't do the "politically correct" thing and state he "regretted" his tweet, when he truly didn't and IMHO, there was nothing wrong with it.


----------



## MoonHowl

Fireform said:


> It's a function of how long the effort is that determines whether it is credible or not. I can produce that kind of power, too, but not for 40-odd minutes.


Back when Wiggo won the TDF, I was mostly convinced Sky was not clean when various team members were pulling ridiculously long turns at the front. Now seeing what Froome and Porte did to Quintana, no frigg'n way Froome is that much better than Quintana and Porte coming back to win as well just icing on the dope cake. It did not appear at all to me that Quintana cracked; he was still riding at a decent pace and still gets smoked... I am afraid this may be the last year I watch the TDF, although I do enjoy the scenery.


----------



## ucfquattroguy

Doing 'well' and Froome/Porte mopping the floor that badly with every other top-shelf climber are two different things. Because of this, I can't *NOT* wonder about things. I fully realize that one stage does not make a trend. However, I'll be watching to see how Froome and company handle themselves over the next stages.

To MoonHowl's point: I agree. Quintana looked pretty good and had a strong tempo...just simply ridden around and left in the dust.

I really really really really want the sport to be clean. I just have a hard time hearing one thing, and my eyes tell me another. There can't really be *that* much disparity among the top 1% of climbers in the world....can there??? *scratches head*

Carry on...


----------



## aclinjury

Fireform said:


> It's a function of how long the effort is that determines whether it is credible or not. I can produce that kind of power, too, but not for 40-odd minutes.


and that is at the end of the stage. Can you do it at the end?


----------



## love4himies

aclinjury said:


> and that is at the end of the stage. Can you do it at the end?


and on a 15KM HC?


----------



## love4himies

ucfquattroguy said:


> Doing 'well' and Froome/Porte mopping the floor that badly with every other top-shelf climber are two different things. Because of this, I can't *NOT* wonder about things. I fully realize that one stage does not make a trend. However, I'll be watching to see how Froome and company handle themselves over the next stages.
> 
> To MoonHowl's point: I agree. Quintana looked pretty good and had a strong tempo...just simply ridden around and left in the dust.
> 
> I really really really really want the sport to be clean. I just have a hard time hearing one thing, and my eyes tell me another. There can't really be *that* much disparity among the top 1% of climbers in the world....can there??? *scratches head*
> 
> Carry on...


Me too.

The only disparity should be explainable. Such as Contador and Hesjedal just coming off a very tough Grand Tour or still on the mend from illness/injury, etc. 

I don't think you are going to see Froome take off again unless his yellow jersey is in jeopardy. It caused too much grief for Sky due to the media attention. 

Sean Kelly being speechless while he was watching Froome on Tuesday spoke volumes. Now Eurosport is stating: Well that's how it's done on the first climb of the Tour. If that's how it's "done", then Quintana and Contador, somebody at least, should have expected it and been able to keep up. 

JV's reaction to Froome:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well..... Hmmmmm... Not much to say.</p>— Jonathan Vaughters (@Vaughters) <a href="https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/620981615972470784">July 14, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I would think JV could recognize unhuman feats in cycling.


----------



## ibericb

aclinjury said:


> and that is at the end of the stage. Can you do it at the end?


TrainingPeaks has been doing power analysis of the pros in the TdF who are willing to share their power data for several years. They are never the top names, but they're still insightful taken in context of the rider's role and performance. The then publish their analysis publicly. I like this one from 2013 Week 3 (see David Lopez).

You can find a host of these kinds of analyses for different years / weeks via google


----------



## Local Hero

SFTifoso said:


> Most people just want to see a close GC competition. Sky took that away from us, and we're pissed.


This is an odd sense of entitlement. 



il sogno said:


> It's interesting how G. Thomas and Froome Sky interviews today (Stage 11) mentioned that they were tired. It's as if they are trying to deflect the doping suspicions over yesterday's stage.


Maybe they were tired? 



MoonHowl said:


> It did not appear at all to me that Quintana cracked; he was still riding at a decent pace and still gets smoked...


Disagree. 

Quintana barely reacted when Porte rolled past. He got out of the saddle for 5 seconds and then just sat back down. No sprint. 

Cracked. 


Last 6 Km of Stage 10 (2015/tour-de-france)




ucfquattroguy said:


> Doing 'well' and Froome/Porte mopping the floor that badly with every other top-shelf climber are two different things. Because of this, I can't *NOT* wonder about things. I fully realize that one stage does not make a trend. However, I'll be watching to see how Froome and company handle themselves over the next stages.
> 
> ...
> 
> I really really really really want the sport to be clean. I just have a hard time hearing one thing, and my eyes tell me another. There can't really be *that* much disparity among the top 1% of climbers in the world....can there??? *scratches head*
> 
> Carry on...


Agreed.


----------



## Horze

I'll grant you this, that Sky's methods may be an oddity as they managed to put Wiggo on the top podium spot in 2012 and started the whole shebang of podium places. Mind, Wiggo who languished much lower down in TdF standings for the better part of a decade as a support rider wasn't someone considered to be GC material by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyone who actually knows anything about Froomie's origins and background will understand what he's about. He is clean. Certainly Froomie is more believable than Wiggo.


----------



## Horze

It's unreasonable to compare riders who are workhorses and have a full schedule of racing throughout the season, to those who only come out to play selectively. Freshness plays a significant part in performance. This is all that CF has done. Kudos to France Armstrong who made this methodology acceptable.


----------



## aclinjury

Next year will be Contador's final year of racing. He has said this. As such, he just might take huge risk in doping, while not racing much (except train in secrecy), preparing for TdF 2016. He's gonna take a pagebook out of the Armstrong's training method


----------



## J24

I can't get past the fact that both Froome and Geraint Thomas were on the Barloworld team that withdrew midway through the 2008 Tour because of positive EPO tests; the the following day Barloworld put out a press release announcing that it was immediately discontinuing it's team sponsorship because of the doping charges. Several months later Barloworld reconsidered and sponsored them for the 2009 season, but dropped the team again when they weren't invited to the 2009 Tour.


----------



## love4himies

Horze said:


> I'll grant you this, that Sky's methods may be an oddity as they managed to put Wiggo on the top podium spot in 2012 and started the whole shebang of podium places. Mind, Wiggo who languished much lower down in TdF standings for the better part of a decade as a support rider wasn't someone considered to be GC material by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Anyone who actually knows anything about Froomie's origins and background will understand what he's about. He is clean. Certainly Froomie is more believable than Wiggo.


That's one issue that makes them suspicious of having a systemic doping program. It's not just diet and training that is going to make a cyclist a GC AND to have GC's that are constantly on the podium because they would be using science and the science is out there for all to read. AND I don't believe for one minute all GC's are clean, so if Sky is constantly on the podium, they are winning against possible dopers. Does that mean that doping is not relevant to win?


----------



## QuattroCreep

Horze said:


> Anyone who actually knows anything about Froomie's origins and background will understand what he's about. He is clean.


Please enlighten us. If you have a definitive answer on why he must be clean put it out there. That is what this thread is all about.


----------



## ghostryder

You guys are missing one major part of the equation. Team Sky are decimating the rest of the field because they are on the new Dogma F8. It's supposed to be 16% this and 20% that and 100% unstoppable. I just had to...


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> A key issue is for how long at any given level of output. In his book, reportedly Froome shares that his 30-min maximum power just before the 2013 TdF was measured at 459 watts. If that were a Coggan 20 minute FTP value, then at 72 kg it would represent ~6.38 W/kg. Who knows if that's real or not, or how that relates to a Coggan 20-min FTP.
> 
> The power profile tables commonly seen originate from Coggan, and I believe they date to before 2008. An interesting question all of this raises is are they still representative with the advances that have occurred in exercise physiology in recent years, and the ensuing changes in training programs?


And you do realize that Coggan's 20 minute "FTP" protocol tends to underestimate actual critical power. So the actual value is probably actually HIGHER than reported.


----------



## robdamanii

Horze said:


> I'll grant you this, that Sky's methods may be an oddity as they managed to put Wiggo on the top podium spot in 2012 and started the whole shebang of podium places. Mind, Wiggo who languished much lower down in TdF standings for the better part of a decade as a support rider wasn't someone considered to be GC material by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Anyone who actually knows anything about Froomie's origins and background will understand what he's about. He is clean. Certainly Froomie is more believable than Wiggo.


His origins and background? 

He was a NOTHING with Barloworld, and as soon as he went to Sky became untouchable.

Clean. Bullsh*t. 

My question is this: 
Why was it ok, even encouraged to question outrageous performances with people other than Sky? What kind of trance do these idiots have over so many people that they simply turn a blind eye to something that is absolutely otherworldly?



J24 said:


> I can't get past the fact that both Froome and Geraint Thomas were on the Barloworld team that withdrew midway through the 2008 Tour because of positive EPO tests; the the following day Barloworld put out a press release announcing that it was immediately discontinuing it's team sponsorship because of the doping charges. Several months later Barloworld reconsidered and sponsored them for the 2009 season, but dropped the team again when they weren't invited to the 2009 Tour.


Maybe this is what Horze was referring to when discussing Froome's history.


----------



## love4himies

Keytones maybe? Anybody know about these:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/bdejaguar">@bdejaguar</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Digger_forum">@Digger_forum</a> look what Twitter found <a href="http://t.co/75XiJDRSu7">pic.twitter.com/75XiJDRSu7</a></p>— The Clear (@vayerism) <a href="https://twitter.com/vayerism/status/621313958377558016">July 15, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Ketones: Controversial new energy drink could be next big thing in cycling - Cycling Weekly


> Ketone drinks are already being used in the professional peloton and could be the next big thing in performance cycling nutrition, despite an unpleasant bitter taste and a cost of around £2000 per litre.
> 
> Ketones are a naturally occurring range of chemicals produced by the body when it breaks down fat and are understood to preserve glucose stores, encourage the burning of fat and preserve skeletal muscle during exercise.
> 
> They were developed by researchers at the University of Oxford, and used as a drink they enhance performance in elite endurance athletes by providing an additional energy source to glucose. Researchers believe the greatest benefits are for long-distance efforts in very fit individuals.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/Digger_forum">@Digger_forum</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/vayerism">@vayerism</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/bdejaguar">@bdejaguar</a> someone's immediate reaction to this photo was 'that looks like a ketone bottle' <a href="http://t.co/Mw0jlcWD4J">pic.twitter.com/Mw0jlcWD4J</a></p>— Dave Smith (@ffflow) <a href="https://twitter.com/ffflow/status/621315747306995712">July 15, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## brianmcg

If Froome were a bodybuilder he would look like this:


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> And you do realize that Coggan's 20 minute "FTP" protocol tends to underestimate actual critical power. So the actual value is probably actually HIGHER than reported.


What's impressive about the guys at the top, like Froome, Quintana, etc., is the power levels they put out for 30-60 minutes at a crack, and then do it several times in a given stage of 4-6 hours. As a 2009 article in CyclingTips described it:

_"To win the Tour de France you need to be able to hold 5.9 to 6.0 watts per kg for 30 to 45 minutes at a time, 3 to 4 times over the course of a 5 to 6 hour day in the mountains. Incredible freaks of nature."_ 

I recall Cancellara had an average power over 6 hours 22 minutes in the 2010 Tour of Flanders of 285 watts, with a max of 1450 watts. I'd like to see someone translate that into a 20-minute FTP.

Dirk Friel explained how he approaches the power analysis stuff they put out. There are always caveats, and one to bear in mind here is we have no idea how "clean" any of the riders were whose power data was shared and analyzed. Related, do the TrainingPeaks power tables representative of truly clean riders, or are have they been skewed by PED use by some of the contributors?


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> Keytones maybe? Anybody know about these:


I know what ketones are, and how some are generated as metabolic byproduts. Ketogenic diets are designed, by increasing fatty acid utilization, to increase natural ketone production. The ketones are then used as an energy source as an alternative to glucose. As I understand it (and I may well not), the idea is to use ketones as a supplement to preserve intramuscular glycogen stores, which would allow for longer duration sustained power output. The idea is a better Gatorade or PowerBar.

While it has been getting explored (simple summary here), I had not previously heard that ketones were being actually used in competition or training (outside of research) as dietary energy supplements. According to the article you cited, if they are being used, they are not banned, and were apparently cleared by WADA.


----------



## Horze

France Armstrong is back in France during the month of July riding on French roads. 

You've got to hand it to the guy. Whichever way you look at it he always wins.


----------



## Horze

brianmcg said:


> If Froome were a bodybuilder he would look like this:


Froomie is an anti-body-builder.

Ketones consisting of Delta Gen, no that's yuck!! 
Ketones are a lactic acid inhibitor.


----------



## ibericb

Horze said:


> Ketones are a lactic acid inhibitor.


How so? Please explain. How do you inhibit lactic acid. 

And what is delta gen?


----------



## atpjunkie

brianmcg said:


> If Froome were a bodybuilder he would look like this:


bad photoshop is bad


----------



## aclinjury

ibericb said:


> How so? Please explain. How do you inhibit lactic acid.
> 
> And what is delta gen?


I don't know what he meant about inhibiting lactic acid. But my guess is using ketones means the body doesn't need to rely on converting pyruvate into lactate as much, so maybe the overall level of lactic acid is lower with ketone usage?


----------



## ibericb

aclinjury said:


> I don't know what he meant about inhibiting lactic acid. But my guess is using ketones means the body doesn't need to rely on converting pyruvate into lactate as much, so maybe the overall level of lactic acid is lower with ketone usage?


So what was meant was inhibiting glycolysis? I believe that's the whole point, without getting into fatty acids. But that's not "inhibiting" lactic acid. Apparently, there's also a favorable energy/O[sub]2[/sub] balance via ketones vs. FFA's.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Sky has enough money and backing to be using new designer drugs that the market has not seen or testers are aware of. Any one remember BALCO?

I called our Barry Bonds on national radio 2 years before being busted and told the host he was on drugs be common evidence. I was called an idiot. 1 year after BALCO I got an apology form the same host on national radio.

Froome, Porte and SKY are on something. May never get caught and cycling will EVER be clean. Every winner has "doped" on something since the inception. People have always searched for an advantage and always will. That includes Lemond and Hinault.


----------



## SFTifoso

Froome now retwitting some guy's post about how powermeters are useless and inaccurate. Oh so your expensive toy on your bike that measures power and helps you train, yeah that. Throw that away. USELESS!

#graspingatstraws


----------



## den bakker

SFTifoso said:


> Froome now retwitting some guy's post about how powermeters are useless and inaccurate. Oh so your expensive toy on your bike that measures power and helps you train, yeah that. Throw that away. USELESS!
> 
> #graspingatstraws


this one?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKD7yzyW8AEi_aK.jpg


----------



## MoonHowl

den bakker said:


> this one?
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKD7yzyW8AEi_aK.jpg


Yes, that one. The problem is Froome doesn't have any coefficients to solve the quadratic equation because someone stole his data.


----------



## den bakker

MoonHowl said:


> Yes, that one. The problem is Froome doesn't have any coefficients to solve the quadratic equation because someone stole his data.


could you point me to the place where it says powermeters are useless as claimed by SFTifosi?


----------



## MoonHowl

den bakker said:


> could you point me to the place where it says powermeters are useless as claimed by SFTifosi?


Well, I have a multimeter which is undoubtedly a useful tool. So yes, I can get the information to calculate wattage, however, you will have to show me where to connect the leads.

Beyond that I have nothing; best of luck with your search on claims of less than useful power meters.


----------



## den bakker

MoonHowl said:


> Well, I have a multimeter which is undoubtedly a useful tool. So yes, I can get the information to calculate wattage, however, you will have to show me where to connect the leads.
> 
> Beyond that I have nothing; best of luck with your search on claims of less than useful power meters.


just trying to found out what SFTifoso is talking about since he refers to powermeters and then a tweet not talking about powermeters.


----------



## aclinjury

ibericb said:


> So what was meant was inhibiting glycolysis? I believe that's the whole point, without getting into fatty acids. But that's not "inhibiting" lactic acid. Apparently, there's also a favorable energy/O[SUB]2[/SUB] balance via ketones vs. FFA's.


Not sure what was meant by inhibiting glycolysis. Though I don't much about ketone effect on exercise physiology, I would not think inhibiting glycolysis is what one wants to do. Inhibiting glycolysis will surely diminish top end power? Ketones require an aerobic environment to work effectively, so if you have a huge aerobic capacity, then ketones may work well for you. But if you have a low aerobic capacity, then I would think inject more ketones into your body will do nothing since the limiting factor is your aerobic capacity, not fuel substrate?

But anyway in racing, one doesn't always get to select to work at a steady state and aerobic fashion. There will be moments on extreme intensity bursts dished out. And even at FTP pace, one still needs to reply on the glycolytic component of overall energy production.

In some cases where some endurance athletes decide to go on a ketogenic diet, they can seem to go a long time but their pace is usually steady-state and subthreshold. And I've seen at least one notable ketogenic advocator (Peter Attia) who has reported that his topend power on the bike decreased under ketogenic diet.

So I guess my point is, assuming that it is true ketones do inhibit glycolysis (which we don't know), why would we want to inhibit glycolysis anyway? All those gels and carbs that the racers are taking in during the race, surely some of those carbs must go thru the glycolytic pathways! (and therefore glycolysis is not being inhibited at all). Anyway, just pondering outloud


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> I know what ketones are, and how some are generated as metabolic byproduts. Ketogenic diets are designed, by increasing fatty acid utilization, to increase natural ketone production. The ketones are then used as an energy source as an alternative to glucose. As I understand it (and I may well not), the idea is to use ketones as a supplement to preserve intramuscular glycogen stores, which would allow for longer duration sustained power output. The idea is a better Gatorade or PowerBar.
> 
> While it has been getting explored (simple summary here), I had not previously heard that ketones were being actually used in competition or training (outside of research) as dietary energy supplements. According to the article you cited, if they are being used, they are not banned, and were apparently cleared by WADA.


Thanks for those links. I read (or tried to comprehend, too technical for me) the first link which is about studying keytones on endurance athletes and from what I gather, it is an efficient way for the body to use energy without depleting the glycogen in the muscles (as you stated). The article states that it is just starting to be tested in endurance athletes as it has previously been studied for starvation/diabetic health reasons. It is my understanding that this could be used for training as it will allow an athlete to drop weight (starve) while still having the energy to train. If this is an unnatural way to enhance performance, is this not like EPO? Thoughts?



> Ketone bodies have long been overlooked as alternative substrates to power our bodies. The reasons for this are numerous but in no small part related to the negative connotations associated with the discovery of ketosis in critically ill diabetic patients [22,114]. Furthermore, ketosis has until now only been achievable in starvation states or high-fat low-carbohydrate diets, conditions which are unpleasant, difficult to sustain and negate many of the desirable effects of ketone metabolism [115].





> Providing ketone bodies to spare intramuscular reserves mimics the physiology of starvation, where ketone bodies provide fuel for oxidation and act as signals limiting glucose and glycogen metabolism [90]. The supplementation of ketone bodies in physiologic states other than starvation may make use of our body’s hardwired metabolic response to elevated blood ketones. Ketones can be readily oxidised by the working muscle and exert a strong influence over glycolytic flux in vivo[21]. Elevated concentrations of ketones in a perfused working rat heart resulted in the suppression of glycolytic flux, even reporting a promotion of glycogen synthesis during continuous hydraulic work [90,92].


I'm wondering if WADA gave it's blessing to use this not yet realizing the effects it can have on endurance athletes?


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> Thanks for those links. I read (or tried to comprehend, too technical for me) the first link which is about studying keytones on endurance athletes and from what I gather, it is an efficient way for the body to use energy without depleting the glycogen in the muscles (as you stated). The article states that it is just starting to be tested in endurance athletes as it has previously been studied for starvation/diabetic health reasons. It is my understanding that this could be used for training as it will allow an athlete to drop weight (starve) while still having the energy to train. If this is an unnatural way to enhance performance, is this not like EPO? Thoughts?


You're close, but not quite.

First, it's _ketone_ (no y). It's a chemical class of compounds, of which acetone is one. 

You're close in understanding, but missed on the train to lose weight. The right ketones are used directly as fuel in the citric acid cycle, that glucose fuels via glycolysis, and from an ATP standpoint they yield more energy per unit oxygen than glucose. When used as a supplement in either training or competition, they are utilized preferentially over glucose by the appropriate mitochondria, which spares glycogen stores, and as a result allows for extending performance.

In principle it is the same thing as taking glucose supplements directly during training or competition, but metabolic ketones are energetically more efficient. Your body produces these in the course of fatty acid metabolism, and that's where the parallel to starvation is drawn. When glucose/glycogen aren't available, your body turns to its fat reserves, which leads to fatty acid metabolism with attendant ketone byproduct production. When that happens the ketone body byproducts are also used as fuel, more efficiently than the fatty acids that are the the main source of energy being utilized. There have been trials and tests using fatty acid as supplements, but the metabolic process from fatty acids is too slow and typically a performance loss occurs.




> I'm wondering if WADA gave it's blessing to use this not yet realizing the effects it can have on endurance athletes?


Consuming ketones doesn't alter existing metabolic pathways, nor does it artificially enhance the natural mechnism that drives ATP production, like EPO does by boosting red blood cell amounts. With ketones you're not changing or stimulating the athletes natural processes, you're just feeding him differently. For WADA to oppose supplementing with ketones would be opposing using a fuel source that your body produces and uses naturally, just as it uses glucose as the main fuel source for glycolysis. If you want to ban ketones, why would you then allow glucose supplementation?

Somewhat related, there is a great deal of current interest in enhancing fat utilization and fatty acid metabolism in endurance athletes to extend performance without the traditional loss in performance. This has led to a whole host of dietary interventions broadly refereed to as "fat adaptation".


----------



## ziscwg

SFTifoso said:


> Without Sky, this would be a really exciting tour. Now we're just gonna see froome win all the mountain stages. My only hope is these "hackers" post everything online.


I figured it's over and will not watch much anymore except for the last day or two.

Are we supposed to get excited to see who is in 2nd place day in and day out?

I'd rather watch Dark Matter


----------



## ibericb

aclinjury said:


> ...So I guess my point is, assuming that it is true ketones do inhibit glycolysis (which we don't know), why would we want to inhibit glycolysis anyway? All those gels and carbs that the racers are taking in during the race, surely some of those carbs must go thru the glycolytic pathways! (and therefore glycolysis is not being inhibited at all). Anyway, just pondering outloud


Inhibiting glycolysis is probably an overreach, but they inhibit one of the key enzymes in pyruvate formation at the end of glycolysis. That is known. Apparently it is a temporary effect, only so long as metabolic ketones are present and available. One they dispapear it's back to glycolysis / pyruvate. One of the intriguing things about ketone bodies is it appears they are preferentially used by mitochondria over glucose. Since they are energetically favorable from an ATP/unit oxygen point, it's actually a good thing for extending performance - when available they are used to advantage, and once consumed it back to the rest. Fatty acid metabolism overall doesn't have that advantage, and that's why pure ketogenic diets have a reputation for loss in performance. The current craze in triathelete circles is "fat adaptation" (see separate response posted a short while ago), trying to take advantage of both worlds.


----------



## ziscwg

ibericb said:


> You're close, but not quite.
> 
> When used as a supplement in either training or competition, they are utilized preferentially over glucose by the appropriate mitochondria, which spares glycogen stores, and as a result allows for extending performance.
> 
> In principle it is the same thing as taking glucose supplements directly during training or competition, but metabolic ketones are energetically more efficient. Your body produces these in the course of fatty acid metabolism, and that's where the parallel to starvation is drawn. When glucose/glycogen aren't available, your body turns to its fat reserves, which leads to fatty acid metabolism with attendant ketone byproduct production. When that happens the ketone body byproducts are also used as fuel, more efficiently than the fatty acids that are the the main source of energy being utilized. There have been trials and tests using fatty acid as supplements, but the metabolic process from fatty acids is too slow and typically a performance loss occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consuming ketones doesn't alter existing metabolic pathways, nor does it artificially enhance the natural mechnism that drives ATP production, like EPO does by boosting red blood cell amounts. With ketones you're not changing or stimulating the athletes natural processes, you're just feeding him differently. For WADA to oppose supplementing with ketones would be opposing using a fuel source that your body produces and uses naturally, just as it uses glucose as the main fuel source for glycolysis. If you want to ban ketones, why would you then allow glucose supplementation?
> 
> Somewhat related, there is a great deal of current interest in enhancing fat utilization and fatty acid metabolism in endurance athletes to extend performance without the traditional loss in performance. This has led to a whole host of dietary interventions broadly refereed to as "fat adaptation".


So, are their supplements that help this ketone process? 

This the first of heard of this. 

I could be Chris Froome in the TDF next yr with these right???


----------



## ibericb

ziscwg said:


> So, are their supplements that help this ketone process?
> 
> This the first of heard of this.
> 
> I could be Chris Froome in the TDF next yr with these right???


oops wrong thread


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> You're close, but not quite.
> 
> First, it's _ketone_ (no y). It's a chemical class of compounds, of which acetone is one.
> 
> Whoops :blush2:
> 
> Consuming ketones doesn't alter existing metabolic pathways, nor does it artificially enhance the natural mechnism that drives ATP production, like EPO does by boosting red blood cell amounts. With ketones you're not changing or stimulating the athletes natural processes, you're just feeding him differently. For WADA to oppose supplementing with ketones would be opposing using a fuel source that your body produces and uses naturally, just as it uses glucose as the main fuel source for glycolysis. If you want to ban ketones, why would you then allow glucose supplementation?


I see the difference now.


----------



## ibericb

ziscwg said:


> So, are their supplements that help this ketone process?
> 
> This the first of heard of this.
> 
> I could be Chris Froome in the TDF next yr with these right???


Let me try again. What you want are the ketone body byproducts of fatty acid metabolism, without having to languish under the flu weight of FA metabolism. So the idea is to use the ketones themselves as supplements. As best I can determine, what is being tried is a derivative of beta-hydroxybutyrate, which once ingested rapidly becomes the ketone body. It's being done that way because salts or the straight stuff are not very palatable, or have undesirable side effects. The published report of the trial can be seen here.


----------



## SFTifoso

Sorry. I was just so angry yesterday that G. Thomas, managed to pull back attacks from Quintana, didn't read that post through. 

I just see Sky coming up with all kinds of excuses, explanations, and even questioning their own leaked power data. The whole World knows their not on the up and up. They're the least liked team in the peloton and even fans are booing, insulting, and punching them as they ride by. Not condoning that, but it reflects how the non-british public feel about them.

They stole this tour from us. Without Sky The Quintana, TJVG, Contador, and Valverde would be coverd by 1 minute from each other. Two GC guys on one team, that would be really interesting to see. Instead we're treated to 4 climbers not being to drop a classics rider in the mountains.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Let me try again. What you want are the ketone body byproducts of fatty acid metabolism, without having to languish under the flu weight of FA metabolism. So the idea is to use the ketones themselves as supplements. As best I can determine, what is being tried is a derivative of beta-hydroxybutyrate, which once ingested rapidly becomes the ketone body. It's being done that way because salts or the straight stuff are not very palatable, or have undesirable side effects. The published report of the trial can be seen here.


Are you suggesting that a ketone drink is what is making Froome and Sky's performance "otherworldly?" 

If so, do you not think that every other team has explored this option as well?


----------



## love4himies

robdamanii said:


> Are you suggesting that a ketone drink is what is making Froome and Sky's performance "otherworldly?"
> 
> If so, do you not think that every other team has explored this option as well?


It was me that brought it up, but now I understand more about it and agree with you. If it was some miracle performance enhancer, all teams would be using it.


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> It was me that brought it up, but now I understand more about it and agree with you. If it was some miracle performance enhancer, all teams would be using it.


Not necessarily, or even likely. If anyone is actually using ketones as enhancers it's being done as part of a research effort. Typically when those kinds of first field trials are done the users have exclusive to the product. The exclusivity provides both enticement and reward for the risk being taken in trying an unproven product. Sky has done this in the past with what later became Skratch and Osmo. Usually the exclusive use period is limited, maybe for one year.

Remember, using ketone bodies aa an enhancer in the TdF is all ungrounded speculation. All I was doing is explaining the science behind it. If Sky is using such a product, then there are very few people who actually now. In addition to exclusivity, research trials are also usually done under a secrecy agreement.


----------

