• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
The Science of Sport

The Science of Sport

Scientific comment and analysis of sports and sporting performance

  • About
    • Who are we?
    • Mission
    • Contact us
    • Archive
    • Sitemap
  • Running
    • African running
    • Event analysis
      • Marathons
        • Berlin Marathon
        • Boston Marathon
        • Chicago Marathon
        • Comrades Marathon
        • London Marathon
        • New York Marathon
      • Track and Field
        • Olympic Games
        • World Athletics Championships
    • Running Physiology
      • Barefoot running
      • Running technique
      • Running shoes
  • Cycling
    • Cycling Physiology
    • Doping in Cycling
    • Tour de France Analysis
      • 2016 Tour de France
      • 2015 Tour de France
      • 2014 Tour de France
      • 2013 Tour de France
      • 2012 Tour de France
      • 2011 Tour de France
      • 2010 Tour de France
      • 2009 Tour de France
      • 2008 Tour de France
      • 2007 Tour de France
  • Sports Science
    • Doping
    • Fatigue/Central Governor
    • Fluid, heat & thermoregulation
    • Physiology
    • Sudden Cardiac Death
    • Talent vs training
    • Training theories
    • Weight loss
  • Series
  • Sports management
    • Marketing & sponsorship
    • High performance management
  • News/Controversies
  • Other sports
    • Cricket
    • Football/Soccer
    • Rugby
    • Tennis
    • US sports
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Ross’ research
    • Jonathan’s research
  • PRESS
  • Book Ross
    • Testimonials
    • Speaking
    • Consulting
  • Show Search
Hide Search
You are here: Home / Cycling / Tour de France Analysis / 2010 Tour de France / Tour 2010 power output reflections

Tour 2010 power output reflections

Ross Tucker · 26 Jul 2010 ·

Last updated on December 2nd, 2022 at 09:54 pm

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Thank you for visiting The Science of Sport. Over the past few weeks, we’ve followed and attempted to analyse the performances of the very best cyclists in the world, and at worst, it’s created some great discussion and back-and-forth.  At best, it’s shown that cycling may just be heading in the right direction in its fight against doping.

Earlier today, Greg Lemond mentioned our analysis in his blog at Cycling News under the title “data of optimism?” and I certainly share that sentiment.  So for those arriving “late”, below are the links to the three analysis we’ve done on the power outputs, courtesy data provided by SRM and Training Peaks.

  • Post 1: Power outputs from the Alps and Pyrenees
  • Post 2: The Col du Tourmalet - the showdown at 6W/kg
  • Post 3: Resolving discrepancies in the Tourmalet numbers

I’d encourage you to also read the comments, where you have really improved the overall quality of the debate with your own calculations and questions.

One of the big talking points in all these analyses is the issue of whether a performance is proof of doping.  Of course, the answer is no.  There are too many assumptions in the calculation of physiological implications of a given performance for it to be “proof”.  Also, things like tactics and weather and preceding stages affect a rider’s ability to produce a given power output.  However, when looked at in context and when those assumptions are “controlled” in order to create a ‘best-case scenario’, the picture is still, I believe, telling, and that is what the above posts are about.  There comes a point at which the principle adds value.

Of particular interest given the debate before the Tour, is that not a single longer climb hit the power outputs that we’ve become accustomed to seeing in 90s and 2000s.  Nor have they hit what we debated pre-Tour as the “suspect” power values of greater than 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 W/kg.

And while the 6.2 W/kg number got a lot of people riled, I really think it’s telling that the very best climbers, with the highest level of motivation (on the Tourmalet) failed to hit those power outputs.  Re that number – in a debate about “unrealistic performances”, you have to commit to a value, even if only to illustrate a point.  It does not mean this number separates the world into light and dark.

Even Contador and Schleck on the Tourmalet, in what was an absolute ‘limit’ performance, just touched 6W/kg as an average, and appear to have dropped right down towards the end of the climb (see post 3 above).  To me, this largely validates the physiological principle that says that for every performance, there is a physiological ‘cost’ and at some point, the ‘cost’ becomes an indication of doping.  In the words of Lemond, the performance becomes “believable”.

There is no dividing line in the sand, no specific point at which you can say “got you”.  A rider at 6 W/kg may be doping, and one at 6.2W/kg (depending on the situation) may not, but there is a theory underpinning it and the change in this year’s Tour is a positive sign, leading to the hypothesis made in those posts and by Lemond.

It’s been a super Tour, with great individual performances on stages, and the confirmation of a rivalry between Contador and Schleck that will hopefully put cycling in the news for the right reasons.  And hopefully, it’s also produced a step in the right direction for the sport.  Bring on 2011, hopefully a mountain time-trial, and another super-tight race!

Ross

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • More
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

2010 Tour de France, Tour de France Analysis

Copyright © 2025 · Science of Sports · Log in

%d