Scope for changing personal power profile?

[dtla]

In discussions of Maximal Aerobic Power or CP values, of central importance is the idea that by improving one's MAP or CP powers one will improve many performance-critical factors (e.g. ability to make and recover from hard efforts in road racing, ability to time trial well, endurance ability in long events). This is because if (say) MAP is increased, one's power-duration curve is shifted to higher power outputs. (Kraig Willet's article on defining base at http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/base.htm has an example of such a curve.) What I am interested in is how much scope there is for changing the shape of one's personal power duration curve - i.e. how much can training be used to alter a personal power profile, in particular at aerobic power outputs? Are you stuck with a particular profile, or could (for instance) training be used to increase VO2max power without increasing the power maintainable for 4 hours? (Not being able to change a profile would, I think, be similar to the evidence that the weight training ratio of 1RM to 10RM cannot be altered for any one individual.)

 

[bikeguy]

I think the general consensus is that Wmax (maximal aerobic power) can be trained at will rapidly increase and then flatline after 1-1.5 yrs of training while the percentage of that Wmax that you are able to hold for 30 min and 2 hrs corresponding roughly to Wobla and Wlac is much more trainable and can be increased to 85% and 80% respectively but this process will take 5 or more years before it begins to flatline. Personally, I just train and keep trying to increase all of them although I've only been at it for 1 year solidly (without breaks). I've had one incremental exercise test to exhaustion done last year August and intend to do another one this year. I'll be entering many mass start or time trial races this year in Finland.

Ahhh.. I think I get the question you are asking, the relative difference between MAP and Wobla, Wlac. The answer is with endurance training your Wobla and Wlac will come up to a higher percentage of your MAP. If you were to do only short intense workouts, then your maximal power output over a short period of time (i.e, you just hammer for 4:30 minutes, like what you would do for a 4 km time trial) would rise, but during a graded test your Wmax would probably remain similar even though for just one 4 minute effort you could put out more power than before.

As regards the 1RM, 10 RM analogy, if you train 10 RM then your 1 RM will suffer and if you train 1RM you will get better at 1 RM at the expense of 10 RM. I've tried training both ways and indeed this is what I experienced. Perhaps it isn't quite this simple though as I've found that 3-5 RM combined with 1 RM seemed to be the most effective way at increasing 1 RM, particularly after having trained after 5 years. During my first year (and this is typical of beginning weight trainees) an increase in 10 RM weight automatically meant an increase in 1 RM, probably because there was such a large increase in 10 RM weight lifted. However after 5 years of training a small increase in 10 RM might actually mean a decrease in 1 RM, because the muscles weren't trained to fire for a maximal burst at 1 RM if one didn't do any 1 RM training.

There, have I made any sense?


-Bikeguy

 

[dtla]

What you write makes some sense. However, to me the writings of Coggan, Stern, Willets et al. seem largely based around the assumption or theory that your personal power profile cannot be changed much.

 

[bikeguy]

There is no doubt that in particular your endurance power output (over 2 hrs) as a percentage of your Wmax will be raised significantly if you train for many years (even 1 will do) doing long endurance rides. Case in point me: last year my lactate threshold was about 170 watts and (now) it's 250 w and that's with only a few rides over 2 hrs. My Wmax last year was 375 w and 170 is 46% of 375, a (really) pathetic number for someone who intends to do endurance races. (I don't think there's any doubt I have quite a few fast twitch fibers). Now my Wmax is 440 w, and 250 is 57% of that Wmax, so I have shifted the curve quite a bit already. It's flatter instead of being a big spike and then dying after 5 minutes like last year but 57% is still bad. I'd say 70% is respectable. I do have one thing going for me, and that's that I can ride aero position in the drops for 3 hrs straight, the other club riders were telling me to go to the tops, and they rode on the tops but I was on the drops, well damn, it was the only way I could keep up with them.

-Bikeguy

 

[bikeguy]

I just read that article you linked to and it looks like nonsense to me. Training at high intensity will increase high intensity performance but will have minimal (or even negative effect) effect on long term endurance if high intensity exercise is most of the training done. Basic principal of training is violated: specificity, you must do MOST training at the type and duration you intend to perform in, in order to get the best results. The question today is just how much of each to do. Another thing I would point out is why do you think professional cycling teams do so much base training rides of 5-6 hrs length (even 8 hrs) in order to give them the endurance to ride 140-290 km races. Sitting on a saddle isn't hard (well not that hard), get a desk job and you can sit in a chair 40 hrs a week but that isn't going to allow you to put out 250 w on a bike for 6 hrs.

-Bikeguy

 

[acoggan]

What you write makes some sense. However, to me the writings of Coggan, Stern, Willets et al. seem largely based around the assumption or theory that your personal power profile cannot be changed much.

Speaking only for myself, I'd say that you seem to have misunderstood matters. If you can articulate a bit more specifically what thoughts/ideas/comments have given you this impression, I'd be happy to try to clarify things.

 

[dtla]

Speaking only for myself, I'd say that you seem to have misunderstood matters. If you can articulate a bit more specifically what thoughts/ideas/comments have given you this impression, I'd be happy to try to clarify things.

I probably have misunderstood things somewhat, which is why I wanted to check. As some examples of the rationale behind my question, I can quote Willets: "The issue with this more traditional approach is that endurance is primarily a function of 20MP, as 20MP influences nearly every power-duration relationship in cycling." and "These two parts of basically the same principle illustrate how 20MP strongly influences power-duration performance." Willets argues that by increasing 20MP one's performances improve over a broad range of intensities, and that increasing 20MP would proportionally increase (say) 180MP. He moreover argues that doing long rides won't preferentially make one better at long rides compared to the 20 minute test - i.e. the power profile for 20 minutes and longer cannot be altered, it can only be shifted up.

Or taking your webpage on power profiling (http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/power/power_profiling.html), we have:
"While each individual is likely to have a somewhat unique pattern that may change slightly over time". Here the "slightly" suggests that the unique pattern cannot be altered significantly. For instance, can the rider with a classic time triallist power profile train to obtain the classic power profile of the sprinter? If not, how much can this rider change his power profile?

 

[acoggan]

I guess I would reply by emphasizing two things:

1) most of the bend or shape of the power-duration curve occurs/is determined by what happens in the first few seconds to minutes of exercise. So, in posing your question it is important to define precisely what you mean by changes in the individual's personal power profile (as you now have...it was the allusion to "CP" values that threw me off a bit before).

2) relative to the above, the rate of decline in power once you get beyond the first, say, hour of exercise is undoubtly changeable, but to a much lesser extent than many believe/only via prolonged periods of rigorous endurance training. This makes it possible to set up training levels based on a single "anchor point" method, with that anchor point (functional threshold power) being a surrogate marker for power at lactate threshold. At what Kirk Willet would call the "left hand side of the curve", OTOH, things are quite changable, depending on the type of training that you do - however, given the extreme degree of specialization you find in, well, specialists (e.g., match sprinters, pursuiters), it is difficult for somebody to change their basic "type" enough to be truly competitive in an event to which they are initially poorly suited. (Of course, the great thing about bike racing is that people of many different shapes, sizes, and abilities can be successful in one way or another, vs. something like distance running where you have to be quite lean/light to be highly competitive.) In this context, "crossing over" from the first two columns to the second two columns of the power profiling tables is going to be the most difficult, because the physiological factors favoring a high level of performance at the extremes tend to be exactly the opposite. OTOH, somebody who has a high, say, 5 s power will likely be able to train to have a high 1 min power as well (if they don't already), just like somebody who has a high 5 min power will, with enough/the right kind of training, be able to generate a high power at their functional threshold intensity.

Hopefully that helps place things in context a bit better...of course, a more direct answer would be to simply show examples of changes in athlete's power profiles as a result of changes in training focus. I've collected a fair number of those and usually show some when I give talks, but it's not easy to show them here (email me offlist if you'd really like to see a couple).

 

[dtla]

Thanks, that makes good sense and helps a lot. I'll PM you about the example profiles.

 

[dtla]

Or rather would email you if I could. If you can send those profiles to me that would be great. My email is:
dtla2 at cam dot ac dot uk

 

[acoggan]

Or rather would email you if I could. If you can send those profiles to me that would be great. My email is:
dtla2 at cam dot ac dot uk

I'll shoot you a couple of Excel files before the end of the day.