Efficiency...The New Thing?

[Felt_Rider]

I wonder if the Polar could measure my work efficiency when I am looking out my office window thinking about the ride we have planned for tomorrow.

I just hope my boss doesn't get hold of the data

 

[Felt_Rider]

Hey kopride are'nt you an attorney?

Don't you guys bill a gazzillion dollars an hour?
Is some poor sap getting billed a hundred gazzillion dollars while you rebuttle efficiency?

Just had to drag someone else down with me.

 

[Steve_B]

Below find a picture of the metabolic cart

Actually, here's one that a local coach/ex phys uses.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/design-c...anks-out-the-power-every-which-way-272459.php

 

[kmavm]

No, the whole equation is circular. The 24% has nothing to do with watts.

In Polar's goofball terminology, sure, the 24% has nothing to do with watts. However, in the real world, "efficiency" really is kJ / volume of O2, and it is this figure (when O2 is converted to its equivalent in energy) that hovers somewhere between 21% and 27%. If you are at 21%, and you could somehow get to 27%, you really would see a gigantic leap (~30%) in power at a given VO2.

Of course, nobody really knows how to change that figure, or if it's really changeable. I seem to recall that people with big VO2Maxes tend to have worse efficiency and vice versa, too.

 

[Steve_B]

Of course, nobody really knows how to change that figure

Maybe not changing the efficiency figure, but EPO would give you an increase in output. Don't know about 30% though.

 

[kopride]

Hey kopride are'nt you an attorney?

Don't you guys bill a gazzillion dollars an hour?
Is some poor sap getting billed a hundred gazzillion dollars while you rebuttle efficiency?

Just had to drag someone else down with me.

Yes. Hah! my rates don't go up to a "gazillion" until next year, and only to keep pace with rising fuel prices. You can see it, if I am on trial or have a brief due, I fall off this forum like I was dead. If I am stuck in the office, then I need something to distract me or I will go nuts. No client gets billed for defending my musings in the forum, but my partners do have a fit when the productivity drops. I need to be on ADHD meds.

 

[kopride]

Hey kopride are'nt you an attorney?

Don't you guys bill a gazzillion dollars an hour?
Is some poor sap getting billed a hundred gazzillion dollars while you rebuttle efficiency?

Just had to drag someone else down with me.

Also, I just checked out your blog. First, you are riding a cannondale, not a felt . Second, my regular group has a lone engineer that rides with a bunch of lawyers and doctors. He is the oneriest one of all.

 

[Felt_Rider]

I need to be on ADHD meds.

Also, I just checked out your blog. First, you are riding a cannondale, not a felt . Second, my regular group has a lone engineer that rides with a bunch of lawyers and doctors. He is the oneriest one of all.

I could definately use a prescription.
The Felt has become one with the KK trainer.
My friends and wife would agree with the last point as well.

 

[kmavm]

Maybe not changing the efficiency figure, but EPO would give you an increase in output. Don't know about 30% though.

It increases output by increasing VO2. It probably is neutral with respect to efficiency.

 

[john979]

It increases output by increasing VO2. It probably is neutral with respect to efficiency.

I think it might indirectly, at least in those with very high percentages of Type I fiber. My rational for this is looking at Riis' SRM file from the Amstel Gold race. 47 minutes, 386 watts average, 154 bmp average. This is at the end of a 6 hour race. It appears he was so doped he reached his LT at a very low heart rate.

 

[kmavm]

I think it might indirectly, at least in those with very high percentages of Type I fiber. My rational for this is looking at Riis' SRM file from the Amstel Gold race. 47 minutes, 386 watts average, 154 bmp average. This is at the end of a 6 hour race. It appears he was so doped he reached his LT at a very low heart rate.

You have only power and heart rate to work with here (much like Polar). What would that possibly tell you about efficiency? His 154 bpms might have been ejecting a lot of blood (inefficient) or little blood (efficient). Unless there's something we don't understand about how EPO works (which is quite possible), it gets more oxygen to the muscles; what percentage of that oxygen turns into useful mechanical work is efficiency, and a low heart rate is not a sign of efficiency.

 

[Felt_Rider]

I don't race so I ask without knowledge, but would sitting in a pack conserving energy until certain points of attack be considered one form of being efficient?

If it is how do you measure that form of efficiency?
If it is a form of efficiency then are there other variables to efficiency?

Enough variables to wash out trying to measure efficiency unless a specific definition of the form of efficiency is defined.

Again I pose those thoughts with ignorance on a public forum.


oops!!....out of time. I need to go sit in my club pack and conserve energy until I attack on the flats.

 

[Steve_B]

I don't race so I ask without knowledge, but would sitting in a pack conserving energy until certain points of attack be considered one form of being efficient?

Perhaps not necessarily from a physiological standpoint (by the definition that AC put out a while back in this thread) but from a tactical standpoint, yes, I would say so.

If it is how do you measure that form of efficiency?

You could get a pretty good estimate by looking at your power meter file and seeing how much time you spent coasting (i.e., zero cadence).

 

[Steve_B]

I think it might indirectly, at least in those with very high percentages of Type I fiber. My rational for this is looking at Riis' SRM file from the Amstel Gold race. 47 minutes, 386 watts average, 154 bmp average. This is at the end of a 6 hour race. It appears he was so doped he reached his LT at a very low heart rate.

Usual caveats about HR apply. Perhaps his threshold rose too along with his VO2 when he was doped.

 

[11ring]

Perhaps not necessarily from a physiological standpoint (by the definition that AC put out a while back in this thread) but from a tactical standpoint, yes, I would say so.

You could get a pretty good estimate by looking at your power meter file and seeing how much time you spent coasting (i.e., zero cadence).

One way to qauntify this form of total effeciency would be calulate speed/power expended per second or even, as used in reference to cars, distance traveled per unit of energy expended. The problem here is of course that extarnal factors will greatly influence the readings. You would need to take both measurements in an abstract world with no wind or hills, or a constant grade, and for distance/energy you would need a constant control speed.

Although hard to quantify, this concept is a useful one in comparing cyclists, expecially in reference to TT's. For example, riders like Ekimov who were lighter than Lance could not hold him on the hills- they had lower power to weight ratios. They could do okay against him in TT's however because their total efficiency was better, due to better tt positions and narrower bodies lowering aerodynamic drag. (of course, here I have used only one part, speed/power, not speed/power expended.) To get the latter you could take for example Vo2 (thres.) / average speed for a flat 40k TT course, no wind.

 

[john979]

One way to qauntify this form of total effeciency would be calulate speed/power expended per second or even, as used in reference to cars, distance traveled per unit of energy expended. The problem here is of course that extarnal factors will greatly influence the readings. You would need to take both measurements in an abstract world with no wind or hills, or a constant grade, and for distance/energy you would need a constant control speed.

Although hard to quantify, this concept is a useful one in comparing cyclists, expecially in reference to TT's. For example, riders like Ekimov who were lighter than Lance could not hold him on the hills- they had lower power to weight ratios. They could do okay against him in TT's however because their total efficiency was better, due to better tt positions and narrower bodies lowering aerodynamic drag. (of course, here I have used only one part, speed/power, not speed/power expended.) To get the latter you could take for example Vo2 (thres.) / average speed for a flat 40k TT course, no wind.

A better metric for flat comparison is watts/CdA. Frontal area can be reduced by position and drag by equipment. Hence, on a climb watts/kg and in a flat watts/m^2.

Keep in mind to that being a better time-trialist does not necessarly mean have a narrow or smaller body. Bigger is just as good, as larger individuals tend to have a greater absolute VO2 Max than smaller indivuals.