Realistic Power Goals



Rocket^

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
85
0
0
After following this thread for sometime now, I have a question concerning w/kg improvement(FT). I would like to be able to set a realistic goal for improvement this season. Being new to power, I'm not sure what a reasonable exectation (goal) should be.

Age: 40

Weight: 81kg (Last racing weight was 73kg. I should be able to achieve this in a couple of months. I have one of those bodies that flucuates rapidly depending on activity level)

FT: 230

w/kg: 2.84

Experience: Trained and raced off/on for about five years (i.e. no coach or set program) During that time I put in 4,000 to 5,000 miles per year.

Current: Started riding again in August after five years off the bike. I currently have a coach and a workout program. On this program I am putting in 35 to 40 hrs of training per month.

If I continue with a consistent training program (35-40 hrs per month) What is a reasonable expectation for improvement (w/kg) for this season?
 
Rocket^ said:
If I continue with a consistent training program (35-40 hrs per month) What is a reasonable expectation for improvement (w/kg) for this season?
Assuming the program has increasing FT as a goal, I'd say +10% on watts, and -10% weight, which would take you from 230w @ 81kg (2.84 w/kg) to 253w @ 73kg (3.46 w/kg).

That estimate sounds reasonable to me, but it's a complete WAG and should be taken with a grain of salt. YMMV.
 
It all depends on how untrained you are at this time. I was able to raise my threshold by 25% in 2 months. I was coming off a winter of no training, and I did tempo for those 2 months.

I would say at least 10%
 
I've been told that even "trained cyclists" (i.e., folks who've been oding structured training for years and years) can see 10% fluctuations in threshold power from the depths of the off-season to peak. Since the stuff I've seen suggests that relative improvement due to training isn't sensitive to age, I think 10% is probably an extreme lowball estimate of the improvement that should be possible.
 
kmavm said:
I've been told that even "trained cyclists" (i.e., folks who've been oding structured training for years and years) can see 10% fluctuations in threshold power from the depths of the off-season to peak. Since the stuff I've seen suggests that relative improvement due to training isn't sensitive to age, I think 10% is probably an extreme lowball estimate of the improvement that should be possible.
Yes, in my case, I have been racing for 6 years. 25% fluctuations are very possible for "seasoned" riders. So for a beginner, they can make huge improvements if they train properly.
 
velomanct said:
Yes, in my case, I have been racing for 6 years. 25% fluctuations are very possible for "seasoned" riders.
Really? A seasoned rider who can produce, say 300w at FT during the race season, detrains to 225w FT during the off-season? :eek:

Geez, no wonder so many riders feel the need to go through LSD periods.
 
frenchyge said:
Really? A seasoned rider who can produce, say 300w at FT during the race season, detrains to 225w FT during the off-season? :eek:

Geez, no wonder so many riders feel the need to go through LSD periods.
I didn't say it was the correct way to train. All I said was that it is possible.

Gee, what do you know? Another silly argument on cyclingforums.com
 
velomanct said:
I didn't say it was the correct way to train. All I said was that it is possible.
Sorry, I wasn't criticizing. It surprised me that it even *could* happen within the span of a few months.

velomanct said:
Gee, what do you know? Another silly argument on cyclingforums.com
We're going to have to really pick it up if we want to meet the new standards. :D
 
frenchyge said:
Sorry, I wasn't criticizing. It surprised me that it even *could* happen within the span of a few months.
The trained state of endurance athletes is extremely fragile. More so than that of, say, power or skill athletes. If you really want to scare yourself, check out http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol11/rundell.htm:

"Coyle, Martin, and Holloszy (1984) studied endurance athletes who had been training for 10 years. VO2max decreased by 7, 13, and 15 percent after 12, 56, and 84 days. Stroke volume decreased by 11% after 12 days."

We're going to have to really pick it up if we want to meet the new standards. :D
I'm rooting for a showdown between acoggan and RDO: the former, saying mid-L2 to L4 all do the same stuff, the latter, anything under L4 is big waste o' time! Come on, guys! Let's get out the whiffle bats and go at it old skool!

Sigh. RDO is probably too smart by half to second-guess Andy about this stuff, though. It would have high entertainment value, though, you must admit.
 
kmavm said:
The trained state of endurance athletes is extremely fragile. More so than that of, say, power or skill athletes. If you really want to scare yourself, check out http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol11/rundell.htm:

"Coyle, Martin, and Holloszy (1984) studied endurance athletes who had been training for 10 years. VO2max decreased by 7, 13, and 15 percent after 12, 56, and 84 days. Stroke volume decreased by 11% after 12 days."
Dang!

kmavm said:
Sigh. RDO is probably too smart by half to second-guess Andy about this stuff, though.
*Most* of us seem to fit into that category, too. Too bad.... ;)
 
kmavm said:
I'm rooting for a showdown between acoggan and RDO: the former, saying mid-L2 to L4 all do the same stuff, the latter, anything under L4 is big waste o' time! Come on, guys! Let's get out the whiffle bats and go at it old skool!

Sigh. RDO is probably too smart by half to second-guess Andy about this stuff, though. It would have high entertainment value, though, you must admit.
I want a seat in the bleachers. I'll take Andy.:D
 
kmavm said:
I'm rooting for a showdown between acoggan and RDO: the former, saying mid-L2 to L4 all do the same stuff, the latter, anything under L4 is big waste o' time! Come on, guys! Let's get out the whiffle bats and go at it old skool!
Actually, to be technically correct, I feel that it is L4-L7 time that results in an increase in sustainable power. Like all cyclists, I end up with big chunks of L1-L3 time, I just figure it's good for increasing endurance but not sustainable power. And, I still want to be in the bleachers.:D
 
kmavm said:
"Coyle, Martin, and Holloszy (1984) studied endurance athletes who had been training for 10 years. VO2max decreased by 7, 13, and 15 percent after 12, 56, and 84 days. Stroke volume decreased by 11% after 12 days."
Sounds very plausible. After building up to what was my highest 3 month TSS load over approximately three months (10/15 - 1/20) (I'm not giving you hard-corers the TSS numbers - you guys would laugh :)), I took a ten day break before my new triathlon season started. Just a chance to give my body a good full rest before the multi-sport training kicks into gear again and finally (hopefully) shake off this stupid lingering cold and cough. I did absolutely no workouts during those ten days.

When I got on my trainer yesterday, as rested as I felt, there would have been no way that I could have completed my usual 2x20 intervals (well, I'm more like 2x18 or 3x10) - perceived exertion was higher, breathing was harder and heart-rate was higher from warm-up through 45 minutes of a tempo ride and cool-down. I was definitely already slipping down the slopes of detraining in just ten days.

Not that I'm trying to present myself as an exceptionally-trained endurance athlete specimen or implying that taking the break was bad - just confirming that the "trained state of endurance athletes is extremely fragile" observation seems to be dead on from personal experience.

Now don't get me started on what not swimming for 4 months has done to my swimming form...

Berend
 
squidwranglr said:
Not that I'm trying to present myself as an exceptionally-trained endurance athlete specimen or implying that taking the break was bad - just confirming that the "trained state of endurance athletes is extremely fragile" observation seems to be dead on from personal experience.
The link to the study wouldn't work for me, but I would imagine that the more finely honed your fitness is, the more fragile it would be. Apparently, my fitness is more like a rubber mallet than Spanish steel, because it doesn't fluctuate nearly as much as those numbers might suggest. I'd guess <5% drop from a 2-week layoff, which would be recovered pretty quickly as well once training was resumed.

But, back to the topic at hand. I say 10%, do I hear 15%? 20%? :)
 
frenchyge said:
The link to the study wouldn't work for me, but I would imagine that the more finely honed your fitness is, the more fragile it would be.
Oopsy, try it without the colon: link.

And yes, the first thing to go in any athlete (including, like, soccer players and stuff) appears to be VO2Max. From this other page, " the reduction in aerobic adaptation is considerably greater than for the other performance capacities." The other performance capabilities include things that cyclists mostly don't care about, like strength and flexibility, but also include peripheral "threshold-type" adaptations ("When swimmers stop training there is no change in their muscle glycolytic enzymes (phosphoralase and PFK) for at least four weeks. On the other hand, the oxidative energy system declines much more rapidly. This explains why sprint times are virtually unaffected by brief lay-offs (up to a month) but endurance performances decline significantly within a period as short as two weeks.". )

Gosh, I'm really pushing this "fair use" idea; have I mentioned how insanely great Coaching Science Abstracts is lately?
But, back to the topic at hand. I say 10%, do I hear 15%? 20%?
I think we'd have to put some kind of time scale in place. I think 10% is obviously doable, say, in the 2006 season. Given any amount of time and training? I think it probably depends on genetics, but I would think 20% from "almost totally untrained" to "close to maximal genetic potential" would be pretty low. I know RDO has improved his threshold by more than 20% in the last year...
 
kmavm said:
I think we'd have to put some kind of time scale in place. I think 10% is obviously doable, say, in the 2006 season. Given any amount of time and training? I think it probably depends on genetics, but I would think 20% from "almost totally untrained" to "close to maximal genetic potential" would be pretty low. I know RDO has improved his threshold by more than 20% in the last year...
Oh, absolutely. My WAG was a *1 Season* improvement figure.
 
Well, this is kind of a "how long is a rope" but....

I would say that if one was deligent and used solid training principles then 20- 25 % would be considered relatively high but possible. Personally, I went got 19% in the last in about 7 months but Im on a steep part of the progression curve and relatively young so that works to increase gains as well. Being slightly older might be a small disadvantage but once again taking a WAG I would say:
10% would be satifying, 15- very good and anything over 20 % to be great.
Also the precentages might be easier to attain because you are also losing weight in the process so that would increase your w/kg.

Also keep in mind that once your lose fitness it is easier to regain it then to attain a certain level in the first place. That is why 10 % flucuations can happen in an off-season to the racing season.



Greg Van Wagner- taking WAGS
 
frenchyge said:
Assuming the program has increasing FT as a goal, I'd say +10% on watts, and -10% weight, which would take you from 230w @ 81kg (2.84 w/kg) to 253w @ 73kg (3.46 w/kg).

That estimate sounds reasonable to me, but it's a complete WAG and should be taken with a grain of salt. YMMV.
I was hoping for 3.65 w/kg. Based on the replies, I think that number is pretty close to being reasonable. I appreciate all the input!
 
The OP's question is really impossible to answer, as it depends on too many unknown variables:

1) how long/hard he has already been training;

2) how much of an increase in training load he can/is willing to tolerate; and

3) how responsive he is to training (something that varies significantly between individuals, due in part to genetic differences).

To help put things in perspective, let me offer the following: my functional threshold power generally only varies 10% in/out of season, due in part to the fact that I've been training for endurance sports for 30+ y and at a minimum am on the bike 3-4 h/wk even when I'm not really training, just exercising for health and fun (as I am now). OTOH, in studies in which we have trained previously sedentary subjects we have achieved increases in sustainable power of ~50% (and in VO2max of ~30%) in just 12 wk, with no real evidence of a plateau.
 
acoggan said:
The OP's question is really impossible to answer, as it depends on too many unknown variables:
Well, sure. But if you get *enough* WAGs and put them on a scatterplot, then you can mathematically regress them down to a highly scientific, and very accurate value, right? :p

That's Democracy in action, just ask the Gallup poll-sters. :D