I Just Don't Believe It!

Alex Simmons

Does the source provide information on the definitions for Maximum power output and Watts at Threshold?

These numbers don't stack up to definitions commonly used here.

For threshold they maybe referred to an LT which is significantly lower than FTP. LT would be a power output sustainable for many hours, wheras FTP by definition is maximum power output sustainable for about an hour.

Max power output as quoted sounds like the end of a long ramp test with light riders and a slow ramp rate. The protocol used to measure these terms is very improtant to know in order to interpret the numbers correctly.

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/

kopride

Its right on the Cycle OPs website under Sally Edwards's list of articles "How Do you Stack Up" and it does provide the source:
Here is how the data was assembled:

"Recently, exercise scientist completed the first study ever that evaluated the workload sustained by professional elite road cyclists during a multistage race using direct power measurements. For background information, please note that these guys are riding 1,750 miles per month or averaging about 50-60 miles a day in training. They are all members of the same team and each competed in at least one of the three major European tours: Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, or Vuelta a Espana. And, yes, they are some of the best cyclists in the world.

The researchers measured the cyclists’ power and heart rate during the six stages of a road race that included a mean uphill time trial. Here’s what they found out:"

You are correct that they are using threshold differently, it is footnoted as:

"The boundary in intensity between moderate and heavy efforts is called “the threshold.”

That sounds more like the LT. Nonetheless, in the same article, there is an additional chart that the breaks it down over different skill levels in different time increments which may be more helpful in comparing the data. I attached it if you can open it as a PDF.

Even allowing for differences in nomenclature, and assuming the one hour benchmark, a significant percentage of the figures reported in our Poll are well within what the chart characterizes as Peak Power for "Domestic Pro" when I guess that we have a lot more "Fit Guys" and Cat 4s. And, even in posting data on the poll, you have a lot of guys providing estimates rather than just grinding it out for one hour in a time trial.

I am not trying to paint a broad brush and claiming that everybody on the forum are liars, I am sure that there are many figures that are dead on. But I am seconding Tyson's observations that it is one thing to type some figure, whether average speed over an hour, or an alleged FTP; and it is an entirely different thing to have the number confirmed in a lab or by a coach in a supervised setting.

Given your coaching experience, you might have better data. Doesn't the FTP poll seem a bit inflated.

Attached Files

HowDoYouStackUpWithWorkout.pdf (270.1 KB, 48 views)

kopride

As Alex also pointed out, you are correct that the article is using Threshold as LT, and that "Peak" appears closer to our FTP. But if you look at Allen Lim's chart, which is also provided in the same article, then your data would match up pretty well. It lists 30 minute peak power for a Cat 4 rider (not normalized for weight) as 240-254. So it would not surprise me if a 120 pound Cat 3 would be pushing similar numbers up a 6 mile hill, which I assumed took you about 30 minutes to complete, assuming you were averaging about 12 mph.

Now, look at the FTP poll and see some of the numbers that people are reporting as well as the watts per kilo and tell me if this makes any sense in terms of what you know about the typical recreational or Cat 5-3 racers in your area are pushing. If guys are really pushing 325 watts or so for an hour time trial, he should be pretty much a national class Cat 1.

Piotr

FYI, the climb was close to 8% and it took me a little over 40 min. Wattage really is dependent on size. I know some larger cat. 3's who can push 330 W or more. They're better crit riders and can hang with me on the hills, because their W/kg may be comparable. I also know a Cat. 2 who's probably 175 lbs and is an excellent climber. I believe he can sustain around 380 W. Admittedly, he has very weak anaerobic capacity and gets dropped on downhills and when going get tough. High wattage isn't everything and I for one am not as skeptical of posters as you seem to be.

On Google Wattage forum, I recently saw that Andy Coggan's W/kg were somewhat lower than mine (especially anaerobic), except for FTP which was equal. I've no reason to doubt his numbers and I know mine are acurate. He's an experienced Cat. 1, he's larger than me, with greater actual power numbers. Nothing mysterious here.

__________________
blog

Alex Simmons

OK, two things:

1. the article says it took power for the six riders during stages of a road race. It is typical (indeed ideal) for cyclists to use as little energy as possible during a road race and hence their average power would not approach the peak levels attainable for say 1 hour.

2. the other table listing power by rider status (fit thru to intl pro) for various time durations (30sec to 2 hrs) is less useful as it should really be expressed as watts/kg or similar. Also, the data in this table doesn't match the data presented for the six cyclists. Finally, I simply think the numbers don't match what those riders are actually capable of. Refer this table by Dr Andy Coggan:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com...rprofile_v4.gif

Simple example for myself. A 49min crit with a Pnorm of 359W - that would make me an Intl Pro based on the Edwards article. Coggan's table would suggest I'm about a Cat 3. I know which one I believe.

As to whether people are inflating their FTP numbers, I can't say but it would probably help to know how they estimated their FTP. The numbers quoted are generally believable in terms of the power profiling table.

In the end, where you are on the table matters little if you don't know how to race.

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/

NomadVW

I've pretty much given up believing what other folks say that aren't willing to put up charts/recorded numbers unless they have something that backs it up.

But really, who cares? I'm not racing against any of the folks in the "threshold" poll - and actually not racing anyone on the forums! The guy that I worry about is the guy that was warming up the climb on last weekend's crit course, dancing on the pedals like it wasn't even there. I didn't need to know his numbers to know he was a threat to my success.

I understand the frustration some folks might feel when someone says they're performing great in 3 months of riding, but face it... some people are just plain genetically gifted. Can't do much about that 'cept pat them on the back as they're blowing by us, and keep pushing our own pedals over.

As I was suffering on my ride today, I was reminded of why I love training on my bike so much. Unlike so many other sports, when the pain really gets up there, it's just me and my bike in the middle of nowhere. If I quit a workout, no one will know but me and the bike. But therein lies the rub. I'll know. And my opinion of my workout is really the only one that matters.

Keep riding guys, and to hell with the braggarts and naysayers.

__________________
Cycling Blog - Training with Power

Felt_Rider

Well stated and fully agree

kopride

Coggan's chart is exactly the kind of data that it helpful. i.e. data that is assembled under laboratory or near laboratory conditions. IMHO, This kind of data does help in getting perspective on the numbers we look at every day, if you are someone who believes that this data is helpful. You're right, it is meaningless if you keep getting schooled in the races you choose to enter even if the watt numbers keep going up. And there is that school of thought among some racers that think that the Power training crowd is a bunch of number obsessed techno weenies. From the brief time that I have had a PM, I have been very impressed with the value of the information, as well as its objectivity. 359 watts in many ways is more useful to me than knowing someone placed first in their age group and their time in a crit over a course or a talent pool that I am unfamiliar with. 359 watts in Australia means the same as 359 watts in SE PA USA. Given my FTP is 255, I would have to be a pretty savvy racer or pretty darn light along a hilly course to overcome that power advantage in most races

My point, I repeat, is not to paint the cyber world as broad liars. I was just secondiing Tyson's major premise which is that there is a lot of stuff posted on the internet, including this forum, which seems at odds with published data and what we know in the real world. And the age old question of whether dignifu=ying them with a response is whort the time.

Personally, the FTP Poll on this forum to me seems like a skewed sample, scant Cat 5s or non racing recreational cyclists who seem to make up the bulk of real world cyclists and certainly not represented inthe distribution of Coggan's chart. Conversely, the higher powere outputters, seem overrepresented. Now that just might that this forum is populated by more sophisticated and accomplished cyclists than the folks providing data to Coggan.

As to whether the Cycle Ops data is flawed, or the sample is insufficient, I certainly am not the one to answer. It is data, and when we have a universe of good data to make benchmarks, a savy trainer can use that data to gain perspective and set reasonable training goals.

And ultimately, a little bit of bullshit doesn't harm me or anyone else on the internet. We all ride for our own reasons, and I am not going to stop reading or checking out other people's views on a forum because of folks trolling for affirmation or posting ridiculous numbers. But the value of any data starts with its reliability. For most racers doing local races, there are a few guys who you generally finish pretty close with in your age group or grouping. For many of us, that is how we guage our own success. I have been riding and racing with a few buddies for almost 20 years, -- off and on -- as we have had kids or had to drop out of the local circuit for a bit. We are all fairly close in ability. If they don't beat me, even in the local sprint at the end of the club ride, I am pretty damn happy. If they beat me, I could care less what my watts or my time was.

frenchyge

For me, the person that I'd have to call to give me a ride home would know also.

That's what keeps me going.

acoggan

Glad to know that you find it useful, but a point of clarification: the tables were developed using an "anchor point" approach, e.g., the top values represent the actual power outputs of recent world champion/world record holding cyclists in competition, not in a laboratory setting.

kopride

Even better! I would have to imagine that competition is a pretty good motivator and the best laboratory out there. My point is that you relied on real data with some assurances of its accuracy and not self reported claims on the internet. Lim and the other source I cited above apparently did the same. Excuse my skepticism, but I would tend to place more credence in data like yours and the other published sources than self reports. We can at least quibble about protocols in that kind of data. Self reports? you don't even know where to start quibbling.

NomadVW

I would also add that a large percentage of power meter owners are probably not the recreational cyclists. So, those who have power data to even report to others are likely already seriously committed to training. That fact will also skew "self reported" values - your "reporting pool" is not an even spread.

Race category (IMO) means absolutely nothing really below cat 3 - where in the states you can get there just by showing up enough times.

__________________
Cycling Blog - Training with Power

kopride

Maybe, but most of us were fastest when we were poor young guys who could barely afford the newest technology. I would easily trade my PM and Litespeed for rolling back the clock 20 years and my old entry level bike. It seems to me that there may actually be an inverse relationship between having the latest gear and how fast you really are. A lot of fat doctors and lawyers riding around on the latest bikes and gadgets who aren't Cat 3s or better. So outside of sponored riders, most of the guys in their 20's are not going to drop 1200-1800 for a PM and new wheel or crankset. Most of the guys that I run into on the road with PMs are rich over 40 scum like myself who are trying to offset the fact that they get so little time to ride by spending $$. Go on a charity ride and see who has the best gear. We have delusions that we are something other than recreational cyclists with cool stuff. The pool is actually dedicated riders with money (or sponsors); or rich guys with the latest toys. So either the rich guys have great jobs and no family obligations that let them train like 20 year olds, or they are telling tall tales on the net.

I agree with you about race categories, but showing up alot is at least the same mark of dedication as owning a PM. Again, between work, sports activities for our kids, etc,, it is hard to squeeze even 7-8 hours of training time per week for most of us over 40 guys with kids. And a race usually blows a weekend day on top of that with travel. My hats off to the guys who show up. For me, a PM lets me make my limited time count, but it doesn't give me the time I would have to invest to be successful as a Cat 2, or post Power numbers like a Cat 2. But watch out in 5 years when my kids are finally off in college!

Sillyoldtwit

Have been in England for over a week now and it's bloody freezing! I don't believe it.

Visited a large cycle shop yesterday, where you can find just about any bike or wheel etc. you could wish for.

Q. What indoor trainers do you do?

A. The Elite. (and that's that)

Q. Do you sell power meters?

A. What's a power meter?

The local gym also has crap trainers.

I don't believe it! Training is going to pot - can't wait to get out of this hellhole and back to the mountains and heat of Japan. TYSON

__________________