Science of Sport humour

Innovation and truth in physiology: (and a humorous, great tip for fat loss, straight out of the 1930's)

Since it's a Friday afternoon, and few people are focused on anything serious, I thought I'd do something of a humorous post today, linked to what people have been writing in recently about "fact vs fiction" when it comes to human physiology (which is our staple diet, after all).

We have a big week ahead of us, and so we're saving some of the more in-depth analysis for next week, when you can look forward to:

• A discussion of the Kenyan "failures" on the track in Olympic and World Champions in the last 15 years. Why has Kenya won only ONE out of the last ELEVEN major titles at 10,000m, for example?
  
• More analysis on Oscar Pistorius, who runs tonight in Rome. The picture is slowly emerging on the "science" he produced to legally clear his way at the CAS. Next week, we'll bring you discussion of those tests, and present that Pistorius is a physiological impossibility, thanks to his carbon fibre blades.
• Continued coverage of the Tour de France which hits the big mountains on Sunday and Monday. This will include more discussion about the feeding strategies, what riders eat, and the physiology and tactics of the race.

But for today, we look at weight loss (as a prelude to further discussion of this topic, once all the sports news is past):

A hot weight loss tip from the 1930's: Introducing Sylvia-from-Hollywood

So here is a weight loss tip straight out of 1930, which I came across a link from a great blog called Half-Fast, which is worth reading for running humour. The post on narcolepsy is a great read, but spend a while going through the posts if you have time or feel like a laugh. But it was a link to this article on a book from 1930's advocating some truly bizarre methods for weight loss that made me laugh.

It turns out that the 1930's were much like today, with people selling "revolutionary ideas" - all that has changed is the platform and method of communication. The following is an excerpt from a book called "No More Alibis", written by a Sylvia of Hollywood. It seems that Sylvia was something of a Jane Fonda of the 1930's. This is her advice for fat loss:

In case you wondered how this might look, there was a picture:


I guess the less said the better! I have few words to add to Sylvia's description (no, it doesn't work!) Though it would seem that if you squeeze often enough, you develop an upper body like a WWE Superstar!

Innovation and progress: Leading us away from truth

Getting more serious now, the advice above, while laughable, is typical of what you'll find today, in various forms. This post on marketing and weight loss (our first venture into these waters) is inspired by a combination of some of your recent comments, work I did recently here in SA, and then a general theme here at The Science of Sport. Those who've been reading recently will know that we've had some discussion around "innovation" and scientific progress, as applied to things like running technique, training, diet, running shoes, and now weight loss. Our general approach (as scientists and as people) is to be sceptical of anything that is punted as "revolutionary", because the packaging of "revolutions" almost always compromises the facts!

I was then recently asked to give a presentation on "The Science of Weight Loss" here at the Sports Science Institute of SA where I work. In preparing that talk, I got to thinking that when it comes to making a profit, innovation usually leads us further and further away from the truth.

In other words, whenever someone packages and then tries to sell an idea (be it technology and training, technique, shoes, or methods for weight loss), they have to be novel and innovative, in order to stand out among the clutter. When you do a search on Amazon.com for "weight loss", you find 60,000 books in the results! Now, if you're the guy writing book number 60,001, you have to innovate, find a point of differentiation. That is obvious, but the problem is that this innovation often leads us away from truth and into fiction.

Weight loss: We've lost sight of the truth thanks to rampant marketing

Take for example the following article, which was sent to us by Steve (thanks Steve!)

The Cardio-free diet: Optimal method for weight loss?

We'll discuss this concept in more detail at some stage. But briefly, it talks about a revolutionary new method for weight loss, where ZERO cardio training should be done. We won't discuss the merits of the argument here, other than to say that it's a very (very) shaky theory, to say the least. The entire basis for the argument is flawed, and the "evidence" to back up the theory is weak and empty. Truth is, cardio is needed, and is crucial to weight loss success. But remember, Jim Karas wants your money, and why would you pay for something that everyone else is doing?

The same goes for running technique - you'd never pay hundreds of dollars to be told that you should run using common sense principles! But when a technique is packaged and then sold, with someone cashing the cheque on the other end, then you have a market. And that is unfortunately what happens.

I must make clear that this is NOT always the case, and there are some excellent ideas and products. And even the theory is often sound - in the case of running techniques, for example, I think the principles are good, I'd advocate them, but it's the "packaging" and sale of technique as a product that I have issue with, as you'll have seen reading our series on Running technique from start to finish!

Quite where the discerning consumer must go to distinguish between genuine progress in understanding and marketing fad is difficult to know. I guess knowledge is power and insurance, but the fact that these concepts have existed for perhaps 80 years (and more) is evidence that the market will always exist, and people will always try to exploit it.

Weight loss - an unexplored territory

At the risk of committing to yet another topic that we should look into in the future, weight loss is a great topic for physiology, because it provides good context for discussion. So I'm sure we'll pick it up in the future, just don't know when!

Have a great weekend, enjoy The Tour de France and the Golden League athletics from Rome!

Ross

Credit to 15minute lunch for the Sylvia article - also some funny content on his site

le Tour de France 2008: Bring on the mountains

Yet another lead change in an exciting tour

Today's Stage 6 saw the first mountain stage of the race this year, although it was a soft introduction to the Pyrenees with "only" two Category 2 climbs. Regardless, it was potentially a day for GC favorites to attack and at least test one another's legs and fitness. There were indeed many attacks, but in the end the favorites were subdued and the attacks came from riders who could not threaten anyone in the top ten.

The day started with an escape of three Frenchmen. The highest placed rider among them was Sylvain Chavanel at 2:10 behind race leader Stefan Schumacher. As such, the Gerolsteiner-lead peloton gave the break a maximum of five minutes before slowly reigning them in. At the start of the Col de la Croix-Morand the lead was down to two minutes and the catch was imminent. With 18 km to go the attacks started, with some riders staying away for a few km's at at time, but none could get more than 20 seconds on the bunch.

Then, in the lead up to the final climb, Valverde's Caisse d'Epargne men all came to the front and dropped the hammer, setting a strong tempo up the Cat 2 climb. The climb itself was not particularly difficult, as it has two distinct sections. The initial 8-9 km averaged maybe 4-5%, and only over the last 1-2 km did it really get steep (>8%). The result of this is that most of the Caisse d'Epargne team were able to sit on the front and ride tempo while slowly riders were dropped off the back.

When Valverde's team came to front it seemed as if he was preparing to launch an attack himself to make up some of the 1:20 or so that he lost in the time trial to guys like Evans, Kirchen, Schumacher, and Menchov. However there was no real attack from the Spaniard, and instead we saw a series of minor attacks follow one another.

Eventually, a group of perhaps 20 riders hit the final 500m for the sprint, and it was Ricardo Ricco of Saunier Duval who jumped clear, with Valverde trying to follow him. Ricco was too strong, and moved a length or two clear of Valverde, who then sat up somewhat, allowing Cadel Evans, who had been marking Valverde, to finish just behind him and lose no time.

Confident move by wild-card Team Garmin-Chipotle

With five km to go, the first "real" attack from a GC contender, or at least from a rider within striking distance of yellow, came from Christian Vande Velde. Together with Leonardo Piepoli (Saunier Duval) the two fired off the front and kept alive a 20 s gap until just over one km to go. It was a solid move by Vande Velde, who was in sixth place and just 37 s away from yellow at the beginning of the stage, although it was not meant to be and he finished just behind the winners today. He lost some time on the (new) yellow jersey but moved into fourth place (44 s behind leader Kim Kirchen).

Admittedly there are still many mountains to be crested in this year's race, but this wild-card team finds itself in a very admirable position. They lead the team classification, but more importantly they have two riders in the top ten (David Millar sits just three seconds back in fifth) with no pressure to do anything yet. Neither Millar or Van de Velde are favorites, but should they be able to limit their losses through the mountains the might see themselves finish quite high in Paris as both can time trial very well.

Another new maillot jaune

So we saw yet another change in yellow, although the circumstances were unfortunate. Schumacher touched wheels just inside of one km to go, and hit the deck. He was uninjured, but lost time and the yellow jersey to Kim Kirchen (Team Columbia). There was confusion after the race over a rule that applies to flat stages, where accidents or incidents in the final kilometer are ignored and all riders are given the same time. That rule doesn't apply on mountain finishes, because otherwise riders would fake problems to limit time losses. Schumacher's team maintain that they clearly were not faking anything (true), and there was apparently deliberation over the application of the rule, with different verdicts being passed. Eventually it was ruled that the time loss would count, and Kirchen inherited yellow as a result (as well having Schumacher blame him for the crash).

The interesting thing is that now we have raced six stages and we have a rider who has the potential to take the jersey all the way to Paris, though he is an outside shot. Team Columbia is a solid team with plenty of experience and talent and they will put up a serious defense of the race lead in the days to come, and we must not forget that the pressure is on the other riders to attack him and take they time they need to move into the lead.

However, Cadel Evans, the big favourite for the race, is lurking in second place, only 6 seconds back. He has seemed strong throughout the race, and we suspect that come the first big mountain stage, he'll have enough to make those six seconds and take yellow. Having already seen four different men wear yellow, we may well be one man away from its last wearer too.

Looking ahead: Stage 9

The next two stages should not see any major attacks and changes at the top, especially with the absence of time bonuses in this year's race. Stage 7 has a few categorized climbs, namely two Cat 2s, but a Cat 2 climb is just not long enough or steep enough to create real separation amongst the top contenders, even when it is a mountain top finish. Stage 8 is pretty mild with only some Cat 4 climbs, but Stage 9 will see two Cat 1 peaks: the legendary Col de Peyresourde after about 150 km, followed by the Col d'Aspin at 184 km. However it is a downhill dash to the finish, and as such it will be difficult for any escapee to stay away after cresting the final climb of the day. Rather, Stage 10 on Monday, 14 July (Bastille Day) is a mountain top finish on Hautacam. That is an "out-of-category" climb, which follows soon after the Col du Tormalet, and we are sure to see some drama on the mountain. Organize your sick day now for a stage not to be missed!

Real Tour de France data

Power output and physiology, straight from le Tour de France

Over the last few days, we've been covering the "on-road" action from the first week of the Tour de France. Immediately below this post, you can find our report from the first big GC-type stage, the 29km individual time-trial in Cholet, won (somewhat surprisingly) by Stefan Schumacher, who now wears the leader's yellow jersey.

The other big winner of the day was Cadel Evans, who ended with a one-minute lead over the man everyone sees as his big challenger, Alejandro Valverde.

However, apart from the racing action, our objective is to provide you with "behind the scenes" insight and analysis of the race, and there's no better place to start than to ask the question: "What does it actually take, physiologically, to ride in the Tour de France peloton?"

Introducing Training Peaks: The information of cycling

And to answer that question for the next 2 and a half weeks, rather than take it on ourselves to theorize and speculate, the best thing to do is simply to refer you to the following website:

Training Peaks Tour de France coverage and data

This site will, for the duration of the Tour, be putting up data from Adam Hansen, a Tour rider with the Team Columbia. The data include all those juicy bits of information that cyclists love so much, like power output and heart rate. So, if you simply refer to this site daily (while not forgetting to visit here, of course!), you'll be able to read up what Hansen's efforts have involved, as well as some insights from Hunter Allen on the data files. It makes for some fascinating reading, and is well worth bookmarking.

If you want to really get stuck into the raw data, you'll have to download a trial version of the software that is used to produce the graphs you can see. This is not a bad thing, because it will allow to see what other features are offered.

Innovation in sport technology and information

I was fortunate enough to visit Training Peaks earlier this year, during my time in Boulder, Colorada, where their head office is based. Boulder, for those who do not know, is something of a mecca for endurance sports in the USA, and so perhaps not surprisingly, it has developed into a hotbed of ideas, innovation and leadership in the sports. I was blown away by the culture of Boulder - the sheer number of athletes, coaches and sporting "communities" is fantastic, and it's a beautiful place too, with a vibrant university (and a strong exercise physiology course!) and some great opportunities. I certainly would put it high on my "desirable places to live list".

But of those innovators, the Training Peaks system must be one of the more impressive. At the time of my visit (early January), I was passing through on vacation, but decided that a great series to do would be one looking at the influence of technology on sport and training, and that was inspired by what I saw at Training Peaks. Thanks to work pressure and a busy year of sports happenings, that has never really materialized, though it is still on the cards (along with about a dozen other juicy topics!)

Getting back to technology, it certainly come a long way from the old heart rate monitors that sounded alarms when you went above your pre-set target zone!

And cycling, perhaps more than other sport, lends itself to data and information, and cyclists are often hungry for this kind of information. But then so are scientists - data is power, and for a scientist, there is no such thing as too much information! The trick is filtering out the redundant, losing the irrelevant and understanding the important information. The WKO+ software you would download to view the Tour de France files is designed to help with that, and they have a number of different packages available, some for the coach, some for the athlete (though of course, anyone can play these roles).

Information, technology and sport: Revolutionary tool or curse?

Whether or not this impacts on information is another question. I guess one has to bear in mind that any software or technology is the tool, not the solution, and so just as one would not expect a computer to perform spontaneous calculations, no one should reasonably expect training with the latest SRM technology and analytical software to compensate for faulty training!

But the point is, this kind of data is easily translated into information and knowledge, and this can, if used wisely, be a powerful tool for training, especially for cycling. Running lags behind somewhat in this regard, for some obvious reasons (relative inaccuracy in quantifying exercise intensity using heart rate or power output, for example) and some subtle ones (financial power of runners vs. cyclists in many parts of the world, for example, though this is a huge generalization; the desire to limit the influence of equipment on running performance is another).

But, even in running, the continual advances of technology (and I'm not talking about super-effective carbon fibre limbs here...!) make an impact, and Garmin GPS watches are become more and more common, for example. Eventually, running will reach where cycling is now.

Different perceptions of technology

I'm sure that many of you reading this use a range of technology in your training - heart rate monitors, GPS, power meters (take your pick of which one!), and the full range of programmes to analyse your training and racing performance. Equally, I suspect that many do not, and could not be bothered with all this information - you take the adage that Kenyan runners, for example, train without watches, let alone heart rate monitors, and it's hardly affected them!

But the role of technology in your training is pervasive and interesting. Books have been written, and will continue to be written, about how to make the most of the technology. An entire industry has shot up around how to use heart rate monitors, the result often being the propogation of myths and false theories that defy physiological belief! That's a series of "myth-buster" posts if ever there was one!

The Training Peaks Tour de France data is one example of how to gather data, process it and generate potentially useful information. It's the most comprehensive I've seen, but there are many others, and they certainly warrant discussion. But that is for another day, after this busy period of sports news is over.

Until then, we'll keep analysing the Tour, and probably referring back to the Training Peaks information from Adam Hansen for some context, so join us over the coming weeks!

Ross

le Tour de France 2008: The race comes to life!

Big GC shuffle after the first time trial

Le contre la montre. The race of truth. The individual time trial. Today saw Stage 4 of le Tour 2008, and although it was short in duration, it was long on impact. The racing is off to a great start as we saw the third yellow jersey of the race in only four stages---and no doping allegations yet! Viva le Tour 2008.

Going into the action today it was French hero-of-the-day Romain Feillu who stole yellow from Valverde in Stage 3. In that stage the sprinters' teams let the four-man break have their way, which was a maximum lead of 15 minutes. At 50 km to go they still had about an eight minute advantage, and the catch seemed unlikely. Indeed it was not to happen, and Feillu and his fellow escapees took the stage with Feillu taking both time and the yellow jersey from Valverde.

Time to ante up

With the short time trial (29.5 km) any one rider's losses would be limited. However we mentioned yesterday that it would still create a pecking order among the GC contenders, as well as present an opportunity for serious competitors to ante up to the table and take a few (or more) precious seconds from their rivals. Accordingly, GC riders like Cadell Evans, Denis Menchov, and Kim Kirchen came out swinging and "attacked" each other and their rivals with the clock.

The hot pre-race favorites were Fabian Cancellara and David Millar, two time-trial specialists who have performed well previously. In fact Cancellara is the reigning world time trial champ. It was a nearly flat course, with only a few bumps in the road to break it up slightly. This neutralized the climbers and favored the time trial specialists like Cancellara and Millar. Sadly but not surpisingly, overnight French hero Feillu lost out a bit, giving 4:59 to the eventual winner and new maillot jaune Stefan Schumacher.

Next stop: Super Besse

It was a very tight race with the top ten finishing within 47 seconds of each other. That is a deep field and rearranges the standings just in time for the first mountain stage on Thursday. Schumacher is an interesting maillot jaune. He won two stages in the 2006 Giro d'Italia, won the Amstel Gold Race in 2007, and was third in the World Champs the same year. So he has had some success, and appears to be a budding all 'rounder whose climbing ability will be tested in Stage 6 this year. He will defend the jersey vehemently, but remains enough of an unknown to make it unpredictable up the two Category 2 climbs, where there will be plenty of attacks as riders test each other and try to gain more time.

Only one minute separates places 2-9 from yellow. Among the top ten, the only likely contenders are Kirchen, Millar, Evans, and Menchov (11th). And even among them Millar's climbing has always been inconsistent and not his strength. Team Garmin-Chipotle also have Christian Vandevelde, who can be a good climber but has never performed that well in the grand tours. Having said that, however, Garmin-Chipotle is in a superb position. They are a wild card entry this year with zero expectations, and have gone from strength to strength since the start of the year. Yesterday they nearly won the stage (2nd) and again today Millar placed highly (3rd).

But Evans is the big winner from the Stage 4 time trial. He sits currently in 4th place, 21 s behind Schumacher but only nine seconds behind Millar and Kirchen. Furthermore, he is over one minute clear of Alejandro Valverde and 1:20 ahead of Carlos Sastre, two Spanish climbers and favorites of many to take yellow in Paris. Obviously Millar and Kirchen can match Evans in the race of truth, but surely Evans will climb better than both of them. With his team throwing their support behind him and leaving sprinting legend Robbie McEwen to fend for himself, Evans then looks able to take and defend the yellow jersey.

Le Tour 2008: We like it!

It has been a great tour so far, with three lead changes and a likely fourth change on Thursday. The Super Besse stage on that day will no doubt produce another shake up as the yellow jersey will be attacked on the final climb (or even before). Add to this the fact that it is a mountain top finish, where time losses can be decisive, and you have a winning combination for some fantastic racing, with a rider like Evans possibly amassing a substantial lead over his rivals. Look for Silence-Lotto to try to deal a knockout blow to the likes of Valverde and Sastre and perhaps even Menchov. If not, the pressure is firmly on them to make up the 40+ seconds they owe to the Australian.

Roll on Stage 6 and Super Besse!

le Tour de France 2008: Feed them well

Why eating is important

The 2008 edition of le grande boucle, as it is affectionately known, is now fully underway, and so far each stage has been quite exciting. The tour started without the traditional prologue, and instead was a full on stage. It's slightly uphill finish effectively neutralized the sprinters, and so it was not surprising to see all the main GC contenders at the front. In fact Alejandro Valverde won the stage and took yellow, although we spoke about how much of a challenge it would be to go "wire to wire" in yellow.

Sunday's Stage 2 had its fair share of bumps with four categorized climbs and also a slightly uphill finish. It seemed that again the sprinters would be neutralized, and it was Fabian Cancellara that attacked with one km to go. He could not hold it, though, and even Valverde had a go, but also faded. In the end a big man took victory---Thor Hushovd from Norway powered across the line for his fifth stage win in le Tour. Valverde remained in yellow, however.

During the first two stages there were crashes as the riders passed through the feedzones. These are designated areas where support crew hold out bags full of food and drink. The riders slow down a bit and grab them as they whiz by. Fortunately Stage 3 saw no crashes in the feed zones, but let's looks at why it is so important to eat on the bike.

Energy balance

We can all agree that the energy demands placed on tour riders are pretty astronomical, but it makes more sense to break it down into a specific context. Therefore let's take your "average" 75 kg cyclist and his daily energy demands. His resting metabolic rate, or RMR, is the amount of energy he requires to sit there do nothing all day long. In other words, it is the energy required by his body to maintain all of its life-sustaining functions. For him it is around 1500 calories.

But our cyclist is not just sitting there all day. . .in fact, he is covering upwards of 180 km per stage, often with significant uphill sections which require more energy. Cycling is a pretty efficient activity, however, and it costs our cyclist in the range of 0.3-0.4 calories per km cycled per kg of body mass---or about 25-30 calories per km. The bottom line here is that a 180 km stage will cost our athlete around 4000 calories, depending on the amount of drafting.

It's a lot of cheeseburgers!

Any way you calculate it, our cyclist's total energy expenditure for one day of the tour is very high. His RMR (1500 cal) plus his exercising energy expenditure (4000 cal) adds up to a whopping 5500 calories, which is probably the equivalent of 15+ cheeseburgers! So just to remain in energy balance our rider must consume 5000+ calories a day. Believe us when we say it: that is a lot of food. Add to this the fact that he is on the bike for four or more hours during the day, plus the "anorexic effect" of exercise, plus 8-10 hours of sleep. Suddenly he has only a relatively small window of time to consume large amounts or calories.

If we assume he is otherwise occupied for up to 16 hours a day with riding, sleeping, and other activities, he has only about 7-8 h to ingest 5500 calories, which works out to about 700+ calories an hour during the time he is available to eat and drink. So remaining in energy balance is actually a huge challenge for our tour rider.

Fortunately the race organizers allow the cyclists to grab the feed bags and eat while riding. This is crucial for two reasons. First, it provides more opportunity to choke down a portion of the 5500 calories he needs in a day. Second, the ingestion of carbohydrates during exercise prevents the dreaded "bonk," or hypoglycemia. Many of you probably have bonked before, and therefore you know that when it happens you are finished---no more racing for the day as you limp home and consume gross quantities of food along the way to fill the hole in your tummy!

How much to eat then?

Klaas Westerterp and his colleagues in Maastricht (Netherlands) actually measured the energy intake and estimated the energy expenditure in five cyclists in the 1988 Tour de France. Their average intake was almost 6000 calories per day, while their average expenditure was nearly 6100 calories per day---indicating that these cyclists did a remarkable job of (nearly) maintaining energy balance. They accomplished this by ingesting 49% of their energy while riding, which amounted to whopping 94 g of CHO per hour during each stage! Furthermore, a full 30% of their carbohydrate intake was in fluid form, which makes it substantially easier to meet energy requirements during the 7-8 h when they are not racing or otherwise occupied.

Given this information now, it should now make total sense when you watch the riders rolling through the French countryside, shoving energy bars and other products down their gullets. Hungry or not, they must get the calories into their bodies. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in fatigue and an early exit from the race, because when cycling four or more hours each day it does not take long to accrue a serious energy deficit. When your body does not get enough energy, cycling four hours or more a day becomes an unnecessary activity, and our bodies have an uncanny way of keeping us healthy---suddenly getting on the bike and pedaling requires substantial effort, more so than a few days ago, and eventually you will not be able to keep up with the bunch.

Stay tuned to le Tour---plenty of action ahead

Looking ahead to Tuesday's stage, we see the first individual time trial. It is a pancake flat 29 km ride and will do two things. First, it will create a pecking order for those who will contend for the GC. Second, it will limit any one rider's gains or losses as the distance is so short, and therefore the race should remain close and within reach for the contenders. It also will set the stage for Stage 6 on Thursday, which is the tour's first mountain top finish, and is sure to produce some fireworks!

Welcome to www.sportsscientists.com

The Science of Sport takes another step forward

This is just a very short post to update all of our readers about a new step we have taken here at The Science of Sport. We have continued to grow each month of our 15-month existence, adding more subscribers and visitors each month that goes by. So thanks to all of you who keep on coming back, and to all of our news readers who subscribe each day. And now we are pleased to announce that we now have our own domain name!

www.sportsscientists.com

Recently some of you may have now noticed that the address in your browser now reads www.sportsscientists.com. While we hope this gives us more recognition and helps build our "brand," we can say that thanks to the work of Blogger and Google this transition is entirely seamless for you and also for us. That means the move to the new domain name does not affect anyone. If your browser was bookmarked at http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com, then Blogger will simply redirect you to the new site. So there is absolutely nothing you must do to continue receiving our content here on the blog or via email!

An action-packed sporting period

Meanwhile, we will admittedly struggle to keep pace with all the happenings in the world of sport. For two guys with day jobs and with Jonathan's first baby arriving any day now (and we mean any day!), posting on the USA Track and Field Olympic Trials, USA Swimming Olympic Trials, Kenyan Olympic trials, Euro 2008, Wimbledon, and the Tour de France will prove too much to cover in a timely fashion. So apologies now, we will try to keep pace, but know now that some of the news and analysis will slip through the cracks. The Science of Sport is indeed a passion for us, but also a part-time endeavor for now.

We are watching it all, however, and will post on what we can each week. It is an exciting time for sports especially with Beijing now only about four weeks away!

Tour de France 2008 Stage 1

Valverde wins Stage 1: An early statement, but a physiological challenge awaits

Spain's Alejandro Valverde won the opening stage of the 2008 Tour de France today, winning a tough uphill sprint finish into Plumelec. The Spaniard is clearly in great form - he won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphine Libere earlier this season, and has carried that form into the first sprint finish of the Tour, though it was hardly a pure sprinter stage.

The tough finish ensured that most of the pure sprinters were dropped before the final kilometer, and a brief scan down the results shows that only Thor Hushovd and Fabian Cancellara (a sprinter at a stretch, admittedly) were able to remain in close proximity to the leaders. The final kilometer saw attack after attack going off the front of a relatively disordered peleton, and Kim Kirchen of Luxembourg looked to have made a decisive move with about 500m to go. But Valverde was able to bridge the gap and then move clear to take his stage victory, and also the leader's yellow jersey, since there were no time bonuses for the sprinters to snap up earlier on the stage.

Valverde's win, apart from confirmation that he is in great condition right at the moment, also presents him with a few conundrum's for the next couple of weeks, both tactical and physiological.

Firstly, to be in the leader's Yellow Jersey after day 1 of a Tour where he, along with Cadel Evans, is really the BIG favourite for the overall GC, means added pressure on him and his team. He was relatively dismissive of that pressure, saying that "I have no extra pressure now, I have already achieved two of my objectives in this Tour; wearing yellow and winning a stage".

And of course, defending that jersey will be far from the front of his mind right now, since there are fully two weeks to go before the Alpine stages begin, and that is likely where the Tour will be won and lost. I don't see any decisive days in the Pyrenees, at least for victory. The Tour may be lost in the Pyrenees, but it will be won in the Alps. So in that respect, Valverde is right.

Also, there is almost inevitably going to be a successful break-away in the first week, and given the tough, hilly nature of the first week, that break could well throw up the race's next maillot jaune. Failing that, the time-trial on Tuesday will probably see a change in leader, since it's a relatively short time-trial (29 km) and Cancellara is only seven seconds down.

Point is, Valverde's prospects of going wire to wire to win the race seem slim, tactically speaking. And this is a good thing, because to do this physiologically is very tough.

I must confess that I was initially surprised at the presence of both he and Cadel Evans at the very front of the peloton in the sprint today. Evans finished sixth, only one second back. However, the way the race unfolded, the strong men had to come to the front, because in the end, only thirteen men finished in the first group, with a further 35 back by 7 seconds. So on reflection, their presence is perhaps not that surprising, and is merely a reflection on the quality of the ride required to remain in contention on today's finish. However, what is still surprising to me is thier contention for the stage win.

As much as I'm not a Lance-apologist (sorry...), one thing (among many, admittedly) that Armstrong got right for the Tour de France was the allocation of effort over the three weeks of racing. Would he have fought hard for the win on the opening day of the Tour? Maybe...interesting to speculate without ever really figuring out an answer.

Physiologically, however, one has to look at Valverde and question whether it's possible to ride a three-week stage race effectively having won a single-day-classic earlier this year, then winning Dauphine Libere three weeks ago, and now racing at the sharp edge of the peloton on day ONE of the main race. That kind of sustained performance level is very difficult to achieve.

In his fantastic book "Lance Armstrong's War" (also released as "Tour de Force", in SA anyway), Daniel Coyle wrote about how cyclists remain "on the razor's edge" in their training - they are always a micrometer from going too hard, pushing beyond the limits of recovery and failing into what in physiology is called an "over-reached" state. Over-reaching rapidly becomes over-training, which I'm sure most readers will have heard of.

Now, it's impossible to say without any data, so we're speculating as wildly as the next person, but is it possible to be in Classics shape in April and May, then stage race shape in June, and still remain on top form well into July? I suspect not, and so my prediction for Valverde is that he features very highly in the first 10 days of the Tour - a Pyrenean mountain stage win is a distinct possibility, but his razor's edge will come in the Alps, when his challenge falls away. Evans, who has been showing signs of form the whole year, is likely, in my view, to get stronger as the race progresses, and I would pick him as the favourite.

Time will tell, however, and it promises to be a great race. Not to mention the other four or five big contenders, like Cunego (7 seconds down today) and Schleck. Tuesday should be the first real indication.

Ross

le Tour de France weekend preview

The Tour de France - the 'sparring' begins

This weekend is one of the great sporting weekends, as always, because it's usually the start of the Tour de France, and the end of Wimbledon. And so for a "newsy-opinion" post, I thought I'd preview these two events.

First is the Tour de France preview, and below it, you can find some discussion around Wimbledon, where the chance of a Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal finals rematch is still on!

But first, Le Tour de France...

Opening salvo

The Tour gets underway in Brest this weekend, and let's hope for a clean Tour with the bike-racing dominating the news rather than the doping, as we wrote yesterday!

For the first time in many years, we start with a mass ride, not a Prologue Time-trial, which means the first yellow jersey wearer is unlikely to be a Fabian Cancellara-type Time-trial specialist, but a strong sprinter - the stakes on that first finish line sprint will be huge! It's not a pure sprinter's stage, however, because it's hardly flat, and it will be one of the strong men of the race who survives a few jagged climbs who takes out the win - perhaps Cancellara is the man to watch, after all. I'd go with Robbie McEwen, however, as this year's first maillot jaune, because he's one sprinter who is capable of hanging on a tough day, especially so early in the Tour.

Tuesday sees the first real test for the big GC contenders, in the form of a short, 29.5 km Time-trial in Cholet. The Time-trials are very short this year, which will play into the hands of the climbers, though the Tour is, I must be honest, a little short of pedigreed climbing specialists who are capable of sustaining that level for the full three weeks. There are certainly climbers, but none who jump out as a Pantani-type overall champion. Soler Hernandez, last year's King of the Mountains will likely feature. But here again, the KoM title will go to the guy who is a good climber but also unlikely to feature in the GC, because he's given free reign to go out and accumulate points without intefering with the "real" race. I've always thought they should award bigger time-bonuses to reward the climbers a little more...

Plenty of 'snipers' and once-off stage winners are expected, but not repeat-stage winners, even in the sprinters, where the race lacks a real "boss". Robbie McEwen, for example, will have to fight for himself in the sprints, because his Lotto team are throwing all their weight behind Cadel Evans for the overall title. This, plus the absence of Tom Boonen due to his cocaine-liaison, means a wide open race on the flat stages.

GC contenders - an open race but with two prominent names

The two names to look out for must be Valverde and Evans, who've shown form all year. Evans also knows what it takes to compete in the Tour, having finished a brave second last year, and having fought with Contador and Rasmussen all the way through the mountains. Valverde fought in patches, and was particularly good in the Alps (as he has been a few times), but has never really carried that through to Paris. Perhaps his maturity and more experience will help him this time around.

This time round, the riders go anti-clockwise, which means they tackle the Pyrenees first, and the Alps only in the second week. Some great stages lie ahead, including the Alp d'Huez climb on July 23rd. France's Bastille day, July 14th, also sees a great stage with a finish on top of Hautacam, after the climb of the legendary Tormalet. This stage is really going to be the first indication of who has the real yellow-jersey credentials.

We'll look at specific stages once the race is underway, as we preview or review the action (time permitting, of course).

But, since we're never shy for a prediction, however incorrect, we'll call Evans as this year's champion, with the other contenders to follow - that's a "run with the herd prediction!"

One final article on cycling, to follow up on yesterday's post on cycling's drug culture. We received the following story from George, which grows (pardon the pun) the legend of doping history of the Tour de France:

When Pierre Brambilla (a well known user of amphetamines)lost to Jean Robic on the last day of the Tour in 1947 he reportedly buried his bike at the bottom of his garden. When asked by a reporter about the incident, he replied sarcastically it was to grow bamboo for a new pair of wheels. "Good job you didn't plant your feeding bottles then," the journalist replied, "You'd have grown a pharmacy."

Join us for race opinion over the next three weeks!

Ross

Wimbledon preview: Men's final

Wimbledon preview: Federer vs. Nadal is still on...

I'll be praying fervently that both overcome their semi-final opponents and deliver us with the final we've all been waiting for. If they do, then the incredible statistic is that Federer and Nadal will have played in BOTH the French Open and Wimbledon Finals for the last three years in a row! It was back in 2006 that they first met on the grass, a month after Federer had lost to Nadal in Paris, and we've seen the same two finalists for the next two years. It's a remarkable run of dominance on two completely different surfaces, and is testimony to the quality of the game's two best players (or the relative weakness of the players behind them, take your pick!)

Federer knew two weeks ago that he'd be facing a tricky semi-final, but he would have thought it would be Novak Djokovic. Instead, he gets Marat Safin, who dumped Djokovic out in three sets in Round 2. Safin is perhaps one of four players Federer would genuinely fear (the others are Djokovic, Nalbandian and of course, Nadal), because on his day, Safin has weapons to beat him. A few years ago, in the Australian Open Semi-final, Safin made Federer look ordinary at times. Friday will be a tall order, however, because Federer is playing brilliant tennis at the moment.

His movement is exceptional, and the grass seems to highlight just how beautifully he moves. On the clay, ironically, movement seems to be one of the problems, whereas on grass, it's his biggest strength. So I'll pick Federer to win that semi-final, probably in four sets, but only if Safin serves really well. Otherwise it will be three relatively easy sets.

The other semi sees Nadal take on either Schuettler or Clement, who have yet to finish their quarter final (it's one set all). That should present few problems, and I'd expect a straight sets victory, setting up the big final (at least, I'm hoping for it!).

Nadal's quarterfinal victory over Andy Murray was a huge relief because he disposed of one of the game's biggest "Freudian-fascination" players, which is a pet hate of mine in the game. I wrote about these players a few weeks ago, who stare up at their psychological crutch...I mean support group, after pretty much every single point, win or lose. A winning point is usually accompanied by a fist-pump and a "Come on" shout, with an apparently longing look at their mother, girlfriend and coach for some divine intervention or affirmation - "Well done, son! You're the best, you can do it, etc.". Jelena Jankovic asks her coach whether she should challenge line calls, such is the apparent inability to think for herself on the court. Murray took the "Freudian tennis concept" to new levels when he beat Richard Gasquet in the previous round, after coming back from 2 sets down.

I've not seen that level of "dependency" in professional sports before. Little surprise then that Nadal, once he got on top, finished Murray off easily - there is no "family showboating" to be done when you're running back and forth chasing tennis balls for two hours. Of course, the British press believed they'd found the new world number 1. The morning after his win against Gasquet, the papers called him "Miracle Man". They should have run a picture of Gasquet and called him "Meltdown Man", because he blew the match more than Murray won it.

Murray himself spoke of his ambition to win Wimbledon THIS YEAR - bear in mind that he'd never even reached a quarter final and you see no lack of confidence there. That's not a bad thing of course, but he's so far behind the top 3 (and especially the top 2) that if his eyes are the title, he's looking the wrong way. So I was particularly pleased with Nadal's win last night.

As for the final, that's anyone's guess. I'd say Federer is still the favourite, only because it's grass and he's looking unchallenged. So too is Nadal, however, and if they perform at their best, it should be a great final. Perhaps the winner will be the player who performs closest to their true ability, thanks to the pressure of the match, and the expectation on both. Federer of course has a 6-0 hiding in Paris he'd no doubt like to forget, which might affect him. Nadal has the expectation and desire that might choke his own shot-making ability. Time will tell. I'm not calling the winner on this one (but let's just hope they do make the final!)

Ross

Tour de France 2008

3 weeks in July 2008: Are we optimistic to expect a clean tour?

The Tour de France begins on Saturday. And while I wish that I could be as optimistic and excited about it as I was perhaps five, maybe ten years ago, there is so much water under the bridge for cycling that my enthusiasm is drastically tempered by my cynicism!

It's true that so far in 2008, we've given cycling a very poor run here at The Science of Sport. In fact, I don't think we've done a single post on the sport, including through the Classics season and the Giro d'Italia! That's partly because there's been so much to write about in other areas, but it's also because, I must confess, the constant negative press, the deception and the farcical attitude of certain people within cycling has really put me off the sport a little - Pat McQuiade, the head of the UCI, last year denied that cycling had a doping problem, despite the fact that millions of dollars was being lost as sponsors pulled the plug on their riders.

So just as those sponsors decided to jump ship, I guess our own attitudes reflect the general malaise around the sport of cycling. The 2008 Tour will start without its defending champion, Alberto Contador, who happens to be on a team (Astana) with a track record of doping. It also starts without one of its great sprinters, Tom Boonen, who returned a positive test for cocaine recently. And then of course, it starts with memories of last year's Tour, where two high profile "heroes" were expelled for positive tests. And the memories of the last ten Tours, where drugs have never been far from the headlines.

However, since no one likes a cynic, we do eventually have to find some light, and so over the next few weeks, as cycling's greatest race unfolds, we'll focus on the action. Funny thing is, last year, we promised the same thing - as I recall, we did a series of posts leading up to the race on doping, but we promised that as soon as the racing began, we'd leave the doping and discuss only the action.

Turns out the action in 2007 was the doping! First it Landis, who didn't even take to the line, the first "Champion" to be stripped due to his 2006 positive test. Then was Vinokourov, one of the "heroes" of the sport, who tested positive and got the boot. Then it was Rasmussen, the yellow-jersey wearer, sacked from his team in sight of the finish line. And so the 2007 Tour, which began with much hope, ended as perhaps one of the three most controversial tours ever. Let's hope 2008 is not the same.

There is some light on the horizon, I'll concede. In what is a telling indictment on the sport (the UCI, that is), most of the pressure to "clean up cycling" has come from the free market - the sponsors, the media, the event "owners", and the riders themselves, who are sick of the negativity surrounding the sport. The "clean up" campaign includes profiling of athletes' blood to establish a baseline against which subsequent testing can be compared, and also the somewhat powerless committment by cyclists to race drug free. The talk has been loud and it has been positive. Whether this is a true revolution remains to be seen, because the culture of doping in cycling is so deep, it may take generations to remove.

A culture of doping in cycling: History tells a story

But since we have a few days until that action starts, I thought I would go back to a post that was done last year in the lead-up to the race, and rework it for now. That post concered the culture of doping in cycling, and how historically, cyclists have taken to drugs just as you or I would take to a Gatorade during our training runs or rides.

It was about last year this time that Bjarne Riis, the winner of the 1996 Tour, admitted to doping. The problem is that he does not appear to be an isolated case, and even within that race of 1996, the top 4 riders all have some sort of history or track record of doping. The same goes for every single winner of the Tour de France since 1996 - either they are known drug users, or they are rumoured to have doped (with plenty of circumstantial evidence), or they are currently being tried (as in the case of Floyd Landis). And so I wrote last year that the "deeper you dig, the uglier it gets" for the sport of cycling.

The first point is that the Tour de France must be one of the first sporting events where doping was practiced. As far back as the early 1900's, riders were drinking wine and using strychnine to "dull the pain". Then, with World War II came the introduction of amphetamines, which were initially created to assist soldiers in battle to remain alert and focused.

They were soon used by professional cyclists, among them Tom Simpson, who famously died near the summit of the Mont Ventoux in the 1960's. In the legendary book Put me back on my bike by William Fotheringham, Simpson is credited with the following quote:

“I know from the way they ride the next day that they are taking dope. I don’t want to have to take it – I have too much respect for my body – but if I don’t win a big event soon, I shall have to start taking it”

Also at this time, one of the men to have won the Tour five times, Jacques Anquetil, was in his prime. Anquetil perfected the use of “the Anquetil cocktail” comprising a painkiller, morphine or palfium, injected directly into painful muscles even whilst cycling; an amphetamine to offset the somnolent effect of morphine; and a sleeping tablet, Gardenal, to allow sleep when the stimulatory effects of the amphetamines were still active. Anquetil’s recorded comment is that:

“You would have to be an imbecile or a crook to imagine that a professional cyclist who races for 235 days a year can hold the pace without stimulants”

Anquetil also reportedly stated:

“For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25). Since we are constantly asked to go faster and to make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants”

A final quote comes from a cyclist, Jesus Manzano (I do acknowledge that these quotes and statments are sometimes inspired by ulterior motives and might be sour-grapes, but given the number of them, they need to be heard), who was banned in 2004 for using doping products:

“They said that I was a rotten apple, but I now believe that the whole tree is rotten … When you train a lot your haematocrit goes down, so how is it possible for someone to go to the Dauphiné or the Giro with a (haematocrit) level of 52%. How do they get it up to this level? With EPO. But it’s the UCI’s (Union Cycliste Internationale) fault. Because they could sort it out very easily. They could take that cyclist to Lausanne, get him to spend a year training (without access to EPO) and see what happens. He won’t end up (with a haematocrit) at 52%, but at 38%. He won’t even be able to get out of bed. But it’s all a farce. The only ones who are getting rich are some of the doctors, and not the cyclists… I have a witness who said that one doctor was asking for six million pesetas (£30 000) to use his preparation methods. Will they be asking for six million for just aspirin and mineral salts?”

So this is the culture of the Tour de France, unfortunately. I once attended a presentation by Dr Alejandro Lucia from Spain, who was a research scientist of the Banesto team that included Miguel Indurain and Alex Zulle. His opinion on the matter was that to the cyclists, the use of doping products had become as acceptable as drinking Gatorade or some other energy drink during the race.

So just as you might plan to run a marathon or go for a long ride and feel that you can't do without some energy bars or gels, so too professional cyclists feel that doping is not an option but a necessity. And this may also be the reason why many cyclists can so easily deny the use of anything illegal - they genuinely believe that it's not illegal, just that it is necessary!

So when they say they have "done nothing wrong", they may actually believe it to be true, even when they might have used hormones or other drugs!

A final quote comes from the judge who presided over the doping case of Richard Virenque. His name is Judge Daniel Delegrove:

"These are not racers, they are pedalling test-tubes"

The 2008 Tour: Optimistic or naive?

Much has happened in the last year since we ran the article that contained these quotes, including the disaster-Tour of 2007 with Vino and Rasmussen. And for the next few weeks, we're going to focus on the racing action, not the doping (unless the doping supercedes it again) with the optimistic belief that we may see a clean Tour for once.

There are interesting ways to analyse this, including estimations of the power output during the mountain stages - there's already some evidence that a typical climbing day in the multi-stage races is being done at a LOWER average power output than it was three years ago.

Also, the somewhat erratic performances of cyclists does tend to suggest a 'cleaner' Tour - the days of a dominant rider cycling away from the field day after day like a Terminator on wheels seem gone. Does that mean less doping? Who knows? It certainly suggests it, because the recovery of riders seems worse now than before, and putting in two big efforts in the mountains seems beyond the normal physiological capacity of the riders. Or is that just a weaker Tour without its big champions? I believe the more open, competitive racing is a reflection of a more even race, where a few riders don't have the clear upper hand they once had. Time will tell if that's true...

Join us over the Tour de France 3 weeks for a race round-up and opinions!

Ross

USA Track and Field Champs 2008

Results and a new "Fastest Man in the World?"

This past weekend saw the start of the USA Track and Field Olympic Trials, as well as the USA Swimming Olympic Trials. It is a lot to cover, so we will try to focus rather on one at a time in more "digestible" chunks for you. In short, however, the action in both sports has been pretty hot with records falling in the pool and heroic stories on the track. Let's get started with a quick wrap of the action on the track. . .

For much of the meeting it was business as usual as many favorites advanced thru rounds and qualified for the Olympic team. In the women's 10,000 m it was favorites Shalane Flanagan and Kara Goucher who eased across the line for first and second, but Amy Yoder-Begley stole the show as she pushed the pace in the second half of the race, chasing an Olympic "A" qualifying standard which she lacked prior to the race. It was her chance qualify for Beijing, and she ran outside of herself by setting a 16 s PB to qualify.

Sticking with the women, in the 100 m it was Muna Lee beating Torri Edwards and Lauryn Williams. Marshavet Hooker was a heavy favorite going into the race, and Edwards is haunted by a positive drug test back in 2003. But it was Lee who beat them all in 10.85, although Hooker ran the fifth fastest time ever (wind-aided or legal) by a woman when she won her qualifying heat. She did not have it for the final, though, and finished 0.03 s behind Williams to miss the last qualifying spot.

Tyson Gay sends a message to Bolt and Powell (and all comers)

On the men's side, the 100 m quarterfinals were the scene for a new American Record when Tyson Gay ran 9.77 s to break Maurice Green's 9.79 s from 1999. Hot on his heels was high-schooler Jeff Demps with a 10.01. He also broke some records, namely the American junior record and the national high school record. His 10.01 also ties him for the world junior record of Darrel Brown (Trinidad and Tobago).

But Gay was just finding his form, and in the final on Sunday night he opened it up for a very fast, albeit wind-aided, 9.68 s. Walter Dix (9.80) and Darvis Patton (9.84) qualified in second and third, respectively, but Gay was running away from them with is 9.68, which definitely sends a message to Olympic favorites Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell. They qualified for Jamaica over the weekend, but Bolt's winning time would have placed him only 4th at the US trials, and Powell's time 6th. So this might give Gay some confidence heading to Beijing, but it will be difficult to maintain this form for six or more weeks, and one can definitely argue either way who has the upper hand at this point!

Men's distance events

Most of the favorites cruised thru the 5000 m qualifying heats, with guys like Matt Tegenkamp, Adam Goucher, and Galen Rupp all qualifying. The hot favorite, of course, is Bernard Lagat, who is competing in his first USA Olympic Trials. A full seven men in the final had the "A" qualifying standard, but Adam Goucher was not one of them. Finding himself in a similar situation as Amy Yoder-Begley, Goucher would have to run hard to meet that "A" standard of 13:21.50 to even have a chance of qualifying.

It was a relatively slow start with a 4:22 opening mile. The favorites were playing it cool in the pack while the laps were whittled away. With four to go Goucher took the lead, needing a sub-4 final mile to get the standard. He left himself too much work to do, and likely was never serious about the race. Regardless, he put his head down and pushed it from the front for one lap. Then with two to go it was fireworks---Chris Solinksy throttled it and strung out the group, in fact forcing Goucher to bag the race. He knew his chances were gone at that point, and had made a pre-race deicision to pull out and focus rather on qualifying for the 10000 m.

Was anyone surprised, then, when Lagat simply moved into the lead with 150 m to go? It was elementary. . .and his pedigree showed in this race. He sat in and made the decisive move at just the right time, winning easily by 10+ m in a time of 13:27.47. Behind him Matt Tegenkamp held on for second and Ian Dobson wrapping up the team in third.

Men's 800 m - Symmonds wins with confidence from the back

This race unfolded as per a normal 800 m final, but ended with a strong showing by Oregon star Nick Symmonds. Khadevis Robinson took the lead and ran hard from the front. This left Symmonds and his Oregon teammates boxed in towards the back and looking like they had give away the race. With about 150 m to go Symmonds was second or third to last and the race appeared to be getting away from him. Then on the turn he fired the afterburners, and blazed past the field to win convincingly in 1:44.10. Drama followed behind him as Christian Smith and Khadevis Robinson dove for the line in an attempt to grab third place! In the end Smith edged Robinson and got the slot (and probably some road rash to boot from his diving finish).

For now the athletes take a break, but the action gets going again on Thursday when 1500 m quarterfinals and 400 m finals, followed by the women's 5000 m and men's 10000 m finals on Friday. We will try to take a look at the swimming trials later this week. And let's not forget that Le Tour de France kicks off this Saturday, so we will have a look at the pre-race favorites as well!

The Greatest athlete in the world?

Is Roman Sebrle the greatest athlete in the world? So say some experts...

I'm not one of them; I will declare all my cards up front on this one. But this was the verdict delivered by the Wall Street Journal in their survey last week, based on the performance achievements and physiological characteristics of some of the world's greatest athletes.

You can read the news article here, but I thought that since our last post looked at the debate of who the FASTEST man in the world was, the logical extension would be to look at who the best all-round athlete in the world is.

The process followed was to identify some 79 of the world's greatest athletes and then rank them in terms of their standing in six criteria deemed important for athletic performance. The judging was carried out by five experts, including exercise physiologists, medical specialists and former athletes, and high-profile coaches.

So, here are the top 10, according to the Wall Street Journal:

1. Roman Sebrle - Czech decathlete, current World and Olympic champ and world record holder
2. LeBron James - Cleveland Cavalier basketball superstar. And, I must declare, my pick at the moment, though that's based purely on his astonishing physical attributes. He plays in a relatively weak team, which has not yet won major titles, which would have counted against him. But as I wrote some two months ago, James stands out in a sport with some exceptional athletes, and I think he is one of the most impressive physical athletes around.
3. Floyd Mayweather - boxing world champion, now retired. Mayweather went 39 fights unbeaten, and retired as the widely-recognized best fighter in the world.
   
4. LaDainian Tomlinson - a running back from the San Diego Chargers. According to the judges, he can "sprint like crazy", and is unmatched for acceleration from a standing start and ability to change direction. This is a "bald assertion", made purely on the basis of their impressions, because I don't know who that was compared to. I know some rugby players with equally impressive sprint ability, though they were of course not considered (it's a very US-centric list). However, I must acknowledge that the NFL has some pretty incredible athletes, and I'd love to know their capabilities in track athletics
5. Roger Federer - the Swiss world number 1 has dominated tennis for about 7 years now, and is currently bidding for his sixth consecutive Wimbledon title. His strength will have been his achievements (see criteria below), though he was recently humbled by Rafael Nadal on clay in France.
   
6. Sidney Crosby - NHL superstar from the Pittsburgh Penguins (we did say it was a US-centric list!). Ice hockey, apparently, combines stamina, power and co-ordination like few other sports. They would "put golfers to shame", according to the article...I know little of ice-hockey physiology, I can appreciate how tough it is. But this inclusion demonstrates the inherent bias in any such debate, and the difficulty in comparing athletes across sports.
7. Liu Xiang - track and field, 110m hurdle athlete. Well, if there was a prize for mental strength under pressure, then come August, Liu might win it. We have written often of the enormous pressure he finds himself under ahead of the Beijing Olympics, where only a billion people want him to win gold! But it's his speed and co-ordination that gets him into seventh on this list. His world record was broken recently, adding to the pressure he's under.
8. Jeremy Wariner - Olympic and World 400m champion. Gunning for Michael Johnson's world record, and still a huge favourite for the Beijing Gold, though he was beaten recently by LaShawn Merrit. Merritt is closing, but probably not enough to dethrone the current king. Again, how a 400m athlete beats out an 800m or 400m hurdle athlete is anyone's guess - he's a great athlete, make no mistake, but it reveals the "dangers" in such analyses.
9. Ronaldinho - Barcelona and Brazil's soccer superstar. I must confess, a very bizarre pick, considering that few would even put him in a list of top 20 players on CURRENT form. Two years ago, he was incredible, a sensation, but injury and apparent attitude problems have contributed to something of a fall from grace, and he's no longer the feared player he was. Ronaldo of Manchester United has probably taken his crown for now, but next year, it could well be someone else. Perhaps we should just say that ninth is held by the world's best soccer player, or you could just as well pull a name out of a hat
10. Alex Rodriguez - New York Yankees baseballer. Again, I'm not in the USA, and so I immediately question these inclusions out of some ignorance of never having played the sport myself. Rodriguez earns one of the highest ON-FIELD salaries in all of sport (reported at $26 million per year), but then being highly-paid was not a criteria for inclusion! Eye hand co-ordination and power were, and it's on this basis that he makes the list. I'm not convinced, however..
    

The process: Six criteria and category winners

Very briefly, the six criteria and the "winners" in each category were:

Vision and reflex: Lewis Hamilton
Stamina and recovery: Alberto Contador (not an East African runner in site, I'm afraid)
Power, strength and size: World heavyweight champ Vladimir Klitschko came out top
Speed: Asafa Powell, who was the record-holder at the time of the survey. Presumably, if done today it would be Usain Bolt
Success and competitiveness at sport: Perhaps the most important category if you want to evaluate the simple criteria of "greatness", because this one probably packages all the required criteria into one outcome per sport. The winner here was Tiger Woods
Co-ordination and flexibility: Yang Wei, Chinese gymnast, won this category.

Summing up: The debate will continue, but some personal thoughts

Since it's a weekend, many of you will only be reading this on Monday, two days later, and so I expect much debate around the list. Therefore, we'll pick it up with more of a detailed analysis in the next week.

But very briefly, my opinion is that this kind of survey is good fun, and great bar-room conversation - it's the kind of discussion you'd have with with ten friends watching a game on TV or over drinks, but to do a "scientific" survey is clearly fraught with danger.

As you read this, you probably already have an idea of who you'd put in your top five. So do I, and I make no claims that this is even vaguely objective - it would be the vote of a fan, not a scientist, but then it is weekend, after all! But that's for today. In the week, we'll be much more objective and look at the criteria and how they were weighted (and assessed, since many were not - bald assertions, as I said earlier)!

Until then, have a great weekend!
Ross

Fastest man in the world?

Who is the fastest man in the world?

It's seems an age ago, but it has only been just over three weeks since Usain Bolt of Jamaica broke the world 100m record. He was duly dubbed the "fastest man in the world", a title that is given to the record holder over 100m. Or, in some cases, the world champion, as was the case last year when the record holder Asafa Powell was soundly beaten by Tyson Gay over 100m in Osaka.

An illegitimate title?

However, the debate rages over whether that title is actually deserved or not. People, including exercise scientists, raise the question whether it should not be the 200m event that throws out the real fastest man, because the final 100m of that event are covered in much less time than a 100m race ever is. For example, the 200m record of Michael Johnson stands at 19.32 seconds, with a final 100m covered in 9.20 seconds (Johnson's first 100 split of 10.12 seconds is pretty quick too, considering it's on a bend - it would have placed him sixth in the 1996 100m final, incidentally).

However, most people can appreciate that this comparison is hardly fair - the second 100m of a 200m race benefits from a running start, so it should be faster. However, a more subtle version of the argument comes from the English Institute of Sport website, where their Professor Greg Whyte argues that because Johnson had to run for longer at the same speed, he's the owner of the "fastest man" title. In his words:

"Therefore the average running velocity is higher in a 200m runner as they will run for approximately 160m at peak velocity compared to a 100m runner who will run for only around 60m at the same rate."

The article (which is actually quite shaky) goes on to make the afore-mentioned error, saying:

"For those still unconvinced, a cursory glance at the record books reveals a simple truth; Michael Johnson’s 200m world record of 19.32 - which he set in 1996 and which has yet to be beaten - equates to 9.66 for each 100 metres, significantly quicker than Asafa Powell’s 100m world record of 9.77 set in early 2005."

Two things: First, this argument is based on the assumption that the 100m runner and 200m runner do in fact hold the same speed - this needn't be the case, as we shall see shortly, and the 100m runner may well be much faster once into his running. Secondly, to suggest that the FASTEST man should be so crowned because he runs at a certain speed for LONGER seems to be confusing the whole meaning of FASTEST. In other words, fastest should imply peak speed - speed is absolute. Or is it? When we wrote about Usain Bolt's performance, people commented that reaction time should be corrected for, and that one should look only at the peak speeds attained. That too defines "fastest" in a unique way.

So as if often the case in science, it all depends on how you ask the question, and how you define the outcome!

A statistical comparison

For answers (or perhaps more debate) we turn to a really interesting comparison between Michael Johson's and Donovan Bailey's 200m and 100m world records from the Atlanta Olympic Games. To take you back 12 years, both records fell in the space of a week - Bailey won gold in 9.84secs (Bolt's recent time was 9.72s, so quite a lot faster) and Johnson won gold in 19.32 secs. Because of the occasion, and proximity, the debate was particularly hot. It even led to the creation of a marketing exercise where the two raced over 150m (which we pick up below).

The study was written by a Robert Tibshirani, Professor in Biostatistics at the University of Toronto, and was published in a journal called The American Statistician. As you might infer, it's heavy on the stats, so we won't go into massive detail on the methods and the various analyses performed, but pull out the most relevant information - split times and speeds!

The problem with the study is that split times were not proactively recorded, and so Tibshirani had to go back and estimate some of the times at 10m intervals during the races. He did this off the TV screen, manually, and the result is some very dodgy splits - for example, his estimates give Johnson's second 50m split as 3.82 seconds, which is far too fast to be accurate. His estimation also gives a third split that is too slow, and so likely the 150m estimate is false. However, his overall model is still revealing, though we're not going to tackle the exact times, but rather the principle - I just don't believe the estimates are accurate enough to base any conclusion on.

So the graph below shows a curve that he fitted to his data. This curve is "fitted" using statistical methods, which take care of some of the error in the measurement, but it's the shape and peaks that are of most interest:


Two things to note:

First, what has been done is to move Bailey's race along the x-axis so that it corresponds to Johnson's second 100m interval. When done this way, it's clear how big the effect of a running start is - Johnson is already moving at over 10m/s while Bailey is accelerating. Bailey takes about four seconds to get up to Johnson's speed, but you can appreciate that by then, he's well behind in the hypothetical "race".

Second, the peak speed achieved by Bailey is faster than Johnson's. He gets up to 13.2 m/s (47.5 km/hour), compared to Johnson's 11.8 m/s (42.5 km/hour). Here again, you can see the effect of "estimations", because the margin for error (about 0.5 seconds) means that the maximum speeds might actually go up to 51.5 km/hour (or it could come down to 42 km/hour). For example, Bailey was clocked with a radar gun in the race, and then the speed was 43.6 km/hour. So the exact numbers are difficult to know outside of exact measurements. But it is clear that Bailey, on the grounds of Peak Speed, is faster than Johnson. For many, case closed...!

For comparison purposes, Bailey's top speed in this race was HIGHER than the top speed achieved by BEN Johnson in his famous 1988 Seoul Olympic victory - he was later disqualified, but nevertheless, in running 9.79 seconds. But his peak speed, according to Tibshirani, was "only" about 12m/s (43.2 km/hour). His performance was achieved thanks to a faster start than Bailey, which would have seen him a stride clear after about 60 m, which would never quite have been closed. The graph below shows those speeds.
So who is the fastest then?

Well, on the basis of these kinds of results, one suspects that the 100m man, who seems likely to hit a higher top speed than the 200m runner, is likely the rightful "Fastest man" in the world. However, because the data is never really measured accurately, it is still not 100% clear. And so having discovered that research paper courtesy of Jen (thanks very much), we must confess that it doesn't fully answer the question! However, we will not close the book on this issue just yet, and promise to look up another study or two, where data was more accurately measured as part of a proper study (rather than a retrospective look back on the race).

A promotional opportunity for the sport?

On that note, wouldn't it be great for the sport if the "powers-that-be" (the IAAF) made an effort to measure these kinds of things properly? Can you imagine if the post-race discussion of the Olympic 100m and 200m finals included an analysis of who was fastest, who accelerated the quickest, who slowed down the most? A bit more detail, in "real-time". It could only be good for the sport, and make it more attractive to watch for people hungry for information. Those who are not, simply ignore the info while waiting for the next event. If anyone from the IAAF is reading, take us up and use the analysis and information to promote the sport! We'd certainly be interested.

Ross

P.S. We mentioned that this debate about the Bailey-Johnson WR led to the creation of a 150m race between the two. You can watch a video of that 150m Bailey vs. Johnson race here, courtesy YouTube, and Jen, who brought it to our attention. I'm sure many know, but it turned into something of an anticlimax! Anyway, enjoy the race!

UEFA 2008 opinions

Soccer stereotypes win through, as UEFA 2008 hits the semi-final stage

About a week ago, I promised that we'd eventually cast an eye over the UEFA 2008 tournament taking place in Austria and Switzerland. True, soccer is not something we've covered (at all) in our year and three month existence to date, but outside of the Olympic Games, this is one of the big showpiece events of the year, and so we felt it important to have a brief look at the tournament.

Those who've followed it will by now know that we're into the semi-final stage of the tournament, and the line up consists of:

• Germany vs. Turkey
• Russia vs. Spain

While it's hardly a huge surprise to see Germany and Spain there, the presence of Turkey and Russia is a little more unusual, particularly given the teams they knocked out to make it there. But most of all, it's the absence of Holland, Italy, France and Portugal that is a little more of a turn up. At the outset of the tournament, you'd surely have put money on at least two of those teams making the last four, and to be in a situation where not one has progressed is typical of a championships that has thrown up some surprises, including Denmark and Greece as two of its recent winners!

The stereotypes of football and a lack of supportive data

But last night, as I was torturing myself by watching Spain against Italy, it occurred to me that with the exception of surprise teams like Russia, soccer tournaments like this are often almost scripted long before the first ball is kicked, as a result of stereotypes that tend to persist in the complete lack of evidence to support them (and herewith the science part of this post!).

For example, consider the following teams, and the associations you automatically make in terms of their playing style. Germany will be efficient, workman-like, ruthless, effective under pressure, and disciplined. Portugal, on the other hand, are skillful, but unable to deliver when the pressure is greatest, and tend to be temperamental and volatile. Holland meanwhile, play "total football", with a focus on the skill level of every player, emphasizing a passing game which is often entertaining to watch, but lack a hard edge. So, in a tournament like this, expect Germany to find a way to win, expect Portugal and Holland to promise much, but fail to deliver...

Note that these three generalizations come from BEFORE the tournament began, but you could just as well write them now that the semi-final lineup has been decided. In other words, Germany were disciplined, efficient, ruthless and effective when under pressure, as they knocked out Portugal, who did falter under pressure with some careless errors.

Holland meanwhile, did play the most attractive football in the tournament, scoring nine goals in three matches, and eventually got dumped out the tournament by Russia! The stereotypes don't stop there - Italy are known for grinding out results, playing dull football and adopting negative tactics which are often effective in these tournaments (they certainly enhanced this reputation last night against Spain, barring a penalty shoot-out loss!).

Point is, the stereotypes that the teams enter the tournament with often end up proving to be self-fulfilling prophecies in terms of the eventual result! But if one thinks analytically about it, there's very little data (at least, none that I can see) that proves these stereotypes to even be accurate. For example, it's not as though Holland do pass the ball more than any other team - the only statistic that has been shown on the TV coverage of the tournament is a passing stat, and the Dutch team are similar to any other in this regard - the same number of attempted passes, and the same completion rate. And how does one quantify the efficiency of the Germans? Is it in fewer mistakes? Well, first we must define mistakes. Missed passes? Missed tackles? Allowing opposition time on the ball? We haven't seen these stats, though I'd love to know what "hard" proof there is to suggest that the German way of playing is different.

The point is, there is a lack of evidence on which to base an outsider opinion of the game. And all this reminds me of the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he talks of a concept called "Thin slicing", where an expert in a topic is often able to make extremely accurate judgements on very little hard information. I suspect a similar thing happens for soccer. Both Jonathan and I played soccer, albeit to a relatively low level, and so we would not consider ourselves experts. However, the experts tend to line up and predict the patterns of play and strategies that will be adopted by teams, and these predictions often turn out to be quite accurate.

The scientist in me would however love to get hold of information that "proves" (or at the very least suggests) that this instictive, "thin-slicing" opinion is correct. Or is it a case where informed insight is based on "intangible" science and information? Any data would be most welcome - an exercise in clever data interpretation to prove what experts and performances suggest to be the case...

Back to the soccer

But, back to the actual on-field action. The biggest pity in the tournament is that Russia played The Netherlands in a quarterfinal matchup, which means that one of the two most entertaining teams was eliminated. Having watched the 3-1 extra time thriller between Russia and The Netherlands, followed by the drab and painful Italy-Spain matchup, it's indeed a pity that the Dutch are no longer involved.

Italy-Spain was a war of attrition. To modify the old saying: "It's a shame somebody had to WIN the match", and for the neutral, the most pleasing result would have been to eliminate both teams and let The Netherlands play Russia again in the semi-final! Italy were dreadful - I've never seen a team drop all 11 players back behind the ball instantly when the opposition win it! It was more like watching a rugby match, where the two teams were completely separated, so defensive were the Italians. So from a neutral, it's Ciao to Italy, with a smile and fond farewell, and let's hope Spain have more attacking flair than they showed last night.

Team of the tournament though is Russia, who have, apart from their opening game against Spain, been spectacular. They have "no name" players who play with freedom, pace and a sense of adventure that is rare and thrilling to watch. It comes back to preconceived ideas and stereotypes about countries, but if the Russian Number 10 (a guy called Arshivin) was playing in a red jersey of Portugal, he'd be praised as one the world's great players right now, the most skillful and the most exciting, because he's been absolutely spectacular. Instead, he plays for Russia, not a glamour team, and those titles are given instead to Ronaldo, who was completely neutralized against Germany in their 3-2 defeat. If Arshivin can even play half as well for a season as he did last night, then Real Madrid would quickly forget their pursuit of Ronaldo and spend that money on the Russian instead!

As for Holland, unlucky again, though outplayed by Russia, who thoroughly deserved to win. The Russians now meet Spain, who will carry more confidence into that game than they did against Italy, and therefore should attack a little more (please let them attack more!). I hope Russia win the game, because I think they'll be invigorating for the final, where I'd pick them to play Germany.

Germany have been patchy, losing to Croatia and grinding out a win against Austria. But against Portugal, they were anything but efficient and workman-like, they were actually exciting and aggressive, and I expect they'll have too much for Turkey, for whom just overcoming Croatia may prove to be a high point. So Germany-Russia for the final, and then who knows - we need an expert to "thin-slice" the possible result for us!

Ross

P.S. Before I hear from people for criticising their teams (soccer fever tends to run high!), let me admit right now that my own nation, South Africa, played against the Mighty Sierra Leone, ranked number 163 in the world, in NOT ONE, BUT TWO MATCHES, and couldn't score a single goal. That's right, 180 minutes against a team ranked 163rd , and we couldn't score a goal...

Bring on the 2010 World Cup and the best in the world. We'll be ready....