power capacities

[C a s r a n]

I've got this sheet:




1. I know some of you are using power meters for a longer time. What do you think of this? Are these data overrated or realistic? Does it make sense? Just wondering.

2. Can someone explain me the reason for the sentence underneath these numbers? Why should only body weight be taken into account when you calculate watt/kg?
example: Is a 70kg rider with a 7kg bike pushing 420watt during a climb having riding at 6watt/kg or at 5,45watt/kg? And why?

3. My own remark. I think this kind of sheets are made to give an average of all riders in a certain category. But these data don't show the variaty of riders: thus a big and strong guy will see himself finding in a higher category if he looks to the numbers over 1min, same for a sprinter, whereas a more endurance based rider will score better over 20min. (or even 60). On the other hand a good climber will perform good in watt/kg when climbing, where a good "hard rider" or timetrialist will be able to have a good watt/kg on the flat (more difficult for a light guy). Am I correct?

4. A same comparison was in a training issue of Tour magazin, I heard. Can any one tell me about? Thx.

[DiterDV]

On the other hand a good climber will perform good in watt/kg when climbing, where a good "hard rider" or timetrialist will be able to have a good watt/kg on the flat (more difficult for a light guy). Am I correct?

I think a climber will "always" have a better watt/kg then a normal biker (and timetrailist) because of his low weight. This makes it easy to climb. But on the other hand a time trailist will have a higher watt, and the weight is not so important on a flat road. Pantani had a little better watt/kg in the Tour of 98 than Ulrich but he had a better watt. So one was better is climbing and the other was faster in time trails.

These number seem a little low.. 5.67watt/kg over 20min should be low World Class... so are there some teams looking for a climber!

[bc909]

That list is pretty good, but it is not really meant to compare one rider to another. Rather it is meant to give any one rider a read on where his strengths are at any time. So if you are a sprinter and you fill in each w/kg box the pattern should be a line like " \ " rather than " - " or a " V ". If it is a "- " or a " V " then it means you have to work some other areas to get things back in line. That said w/kg is a pretty good way to get a read on things, but it has its limits.

On the flats it is a matter of aero and pure wattage. To be a good pro you need to work in the 400w range for 40+ minutes. If you can work around 450w you will be a very good pro at almost any weight (well at least almost any weight that you can maintain while building enough endurance to compete in road races). The best way to think about it is I would rather have power to aero, and I would rather have aero to weight (did I just say that on WW ). Large amount of power for a long duration is king.

[Sparta]

I think it seems rather ok although I think the heavier riders will be classified relatively poorer than their actual ability. I remember seing a interpretation of the chart that describe different ridertypes; sprinters would have a relatively higher 5s than their other values whereas TT specialists would score better in their 5 and 20 minutes vaules. Petacchi is 1600 w 70 kg, or a 5 s value of 22,85 which seems approx. right. It puts me in cat three with an even poorer sprint, which seems approx right

[TheBigBlueGiant]

I remember seing a interpretation of the chart that describe different ridertypes

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html


The examples you speak of were probably these.

[Sparta]

Thanks for backing my postulations

[John979]

All of the above explanations are pretty good. Keep in mind that none of the lines represent the actual ability of any individual, it is a tabulation of data, some of which according to Dr. Coggan had to be extrapolated. In addition, specific cell data is generally correlated to data from individuals with that specific strength, meaning 5 second data from sprinters, 5 minute data from track cyclists, 20 minute data from time trialists.

This particular table is the older version. The latest drops classification based upon USCF category and 20 minute power is replaced by "functional threshold power," a term favored by Dr. Coggan but one I don't like due to its ambiguity. IMHO, if FTP equates to 60 minute power, say 60 minute power. I think the reason Dr. Coggan prefers FTP is that strictly speaking 60 minute data is had to find, but FTP data (40K time trial) is easy to obtain and is typically less than 60 minutes for a strong cyclist.

As Dr. Coggan repeatedly points out, this table was never meant to be used to compare one individual against another. Rather, it is used to determine an individual's relative strengths and weakness. When I first got my power meter and did all the testing, I was stunned by the results. Nothing matched my personal assessment without real data.

Finally, a comment on watts/kg. In certain instances, size does matter. For example a very small person with a high 5 sec watts/kg would be at a disadvantage to a much larger person with a lesser watts/kg. However, in reality such competitive mismatches don't occur that frequently. Personally, I prefer the metric watts/kg^.67, which is a slightly better pure predictor of performance.

[steevo]

i weigh 62k and can pack a pretty good punch in a sprint against non sprinters. This makes it look as if I would be a sprinting god or something, when fact of the matter is I can only win uphill finishes or KOM sprints. Put me up against a track racers and it is laughable.

[Crit Rat]

i weigh 62k and can pack a pretty good punch in a sprint against non sprinters. This makes it look as if I would be a sprinting god or something, when fact of the matter is I can only win uphill finishes or KOM sprints. Put me up against a track racers and it is laughable.

Yeah in sprinting, the max wattage IMO is more important than the watts/kg. Frontal area doesn't change all that much with most cyclists giving the advantage to the bigger guy who can really push out some big power in the last 100meters.

[John979]

i weigh 62k and can pack a pretty good punch in a sprint against non sprinters. This makes it look as if I would be a sprinting god or something, when fact of the matter is I can only win uphill finishes or KOM sprints. Put me up against a track racers and it is laughable.

Yeah in sprinting, the max wattage IMO is more important than the watts/kg. Frontal area doesn't change all that much with most cyclists giving the advantage to the bigger guy who can really push out some big power in the last 100meters.

While both are comments are correct Dr. Coggan maintains that among a truly equally field of talent 1) few sprinters are small 2) physiological talent is not that different then watts/kg is an effective metric.

This table is not intended to predict performance. It is intended to help a rider understand what are their relative strenghts and weaknesses, then decide an appropriate course of action. Old school would say "work on our limiters" while new school would say "race your strengths," the latter being among the best advice I have ever heard...

[GonaSovereign]

I've got this sheet:

Hey Casran, did you pull that image from an excel sheet with your weight? I've got an excel template made by Andrew Coggan that, in addition to the relative watts displayed in your list, will generate maximum watts based on your specific weigh. PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

Geoff

[C a s r a n]

I want to thank you all for the interesting input in this discussion. I have been through a lot of reading on this subject, got some info from a researcher at the Leuven University (Reinout Van Schuylenbergh, a well known man here in Belgium) and you've been very helpfull.

This is what I've found. Please correct me if I'm incorrect!!


First of all, as John979 stated, the table is an older version. Here is a newer one:




Theoretical background of these periodes:
- 5 sec: a good standard for the maximal power of the creatine phosphate system - neuromuscular power
- 1 minute: a standard for the lactate system, though not maximal - anaerobic capacity)
- 5 minutes: standard for maximal aerobic capacity, pVO2max - maximal oxygen taken
- 20 minutes or FT: standard for maximal power on MLSS (though this can lead to certain incorrectness, but this is considered as a "normal margin of error" - lactate threshold - LT)


When I got this scheme (from a friend, without any explication) I first thought this was ment to be as a standard of each riders capacities in a certain competition level. Kinda stupid, I though. Of course this is a misinterpretation; I would have done better calling the topic "power profiling" instead op "power capacities".

The examples of what is possible with this table are very interesting. One can fill in his own results, can see his weaknesses and strength, and constatate what kind of rider he is! "Race your strenghts" is indeed a very nice advise; I will keep that in mind.


Shortly, this kind of profiles are possible

1. (-) An "all rounder".
eg. Male rider is a Master 45+, criterium and points race; female is master 40+, expert MTB en cat. 3 road racer.



2. (\) A "sprinter".
eg. male is cat. 3 racer with a strong sprint; female is USA national champ 500m and match sprint



3. (/) A "time trialist". Relatively weak anaerobic capacities, but strong aerobic capacity and on MLSS level.
eg. man is prof divisie III, told to be a strong time trialist; female is an Australian elite racer (top 10 nationals)



4. (^) Inversed V-patern. A potential all-rounder with less developped/trained duration capacities. An ideal persuiter on track.
eg. man is masters 40+, WC and WR holder 3000m persuit (2x Olympic); woman is USA national champ 3000m persuit



5. (V) V-pattern. Very unlikely to happen.


Thanks to GonaSovereign I got this brand new Excel-file where one can fill in his own weight and see the absolute power in the table.

I mailed it to Dingo for upload. You can have access to it on this link: http://members.lycos.nl/dingothedog/power_comparison.xls

Weight is demanded in pounds; a quick search on the net gave me this link with a nice pouds-kg-converter: http://www.healthyweightforum.org/eng/converter.asp


Thank you all!



This question remains for me:

Can someone explain me the reason for the sentence underneath these numbers? Why should only body weight be taken into account when you calculate watt/kg?
example: Is a 70kg rider with a 7kg bike pushing 420watt during a climb having riding at 6watt/kg or at 5,45watt/kg? And why?

[John979]

Casran;

Thanks for taking the time to add details -- something I have been mean to do but did not have the time.

#4 is me, but I would have never guessed it without a power meter and this table.

One question is, how much is nature and how much is nurture? I have never raced a pursuit, but have very good maximal aerobic power, along with dismal aenerobic power (I can hear Bruiser telling me to hit the weights). I don't even do much VO2 workouts, save for the short hills on group rides. Could it be that when I first started cycling seriously, about 10 years ago, I lived near many short hills and it molded my power profile, or is it just genetics?

The other question is, from the limiter persective (which I don't like) is how much can one "improve" a weakness? Clearly data shows that aerobic power, especially threshold power, is very trainable. OTOH, some data shows that aenerobic power plateaus very quickly, and this not very trainable thereafter.

[Lukas Koukal]

Please, could anybody tell me what Functional and Lactate threshold is? My doctor makes my tests to get data (HR, Pedaling frequency, Watt and Watt/kg) at 2 and 4mmol of lactate in blood - think these "borders" are the thresholds You´re talking about, but which one is which? Thanks L.

[C a s r a n]

Please, could anybody tell me what Functional and Lactate threshold is? My doctor makes my tests to get data (HR, Pedaling frequency, Watt and Watt/kg) at 2 and 4mmol of lactate in blood - think these "borders" are the thresholds You´re talking about, but which one is which? Thanks L.

Why is that?

It is very outdated science to consider the "aerobic and anaerobic threshold" as fixed on 2 and 4mMol/l. To often I see some doctors still using these old thoughts. Such inaccuraties can lead to over- or mistraining. Nowadays the MLSS is used, and that can as well be above or under 4mMol/l. In my case for instance, my body is steady state beneath 4mMol/l.