SST "milestone"



jbvcoaching

New Member
Dec 28, 2005
206
0
0
rmur17 said:
I figure big Mig could do perhaps 620W
Reality check: That's 7.75W/kg, Rick. You saying Andy's power profiling charts need updating, that Miguel had better 5M W/kg than Boardman?
 

joemw

New Member
Jan 12, 2006
97
0
0
42
jbvcoaching said:
Reality check: That's 7.75W/kg, Rick. You saying Andy's power profiling charts need updating, that Miguel had better 5M W/kg than Boardman?
Reality check :p ; it's certainly possible, and if not by a former hour record holder, than by somebody else. That's only 2% over the top of Andy's chart, it wouldn't be earth shattering.
 

rmur17

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
1,066
0
0
jbvcoaching said:
Reality check: That's 7.75W/kg, Rick. You saying Andy's power profiling charts need updating, that Miguel had better 5M W/kg than Boardman?
no I didn't check that. Just guessing based on the reported 510W FTP and the ramp test end power. If he did 573W for 4-min at the end of what for him would be a very long ramp test, I still figure he could have done quite a bit more for 5MP when rested.

Re FTP/kg outliers , I recall seeing estimates of Tony Rominger's '94 hour record as 456W and 65kg or around 7.0 w/kg (JAP 89:1522-1527 2000, "Scientific Approach to the 1-hr Cycling World Record", Padilla et al).

There were some big numbers around that time ;)
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
9
0
rmur17 said:
no I didn't check that. Just guessing based on the reported 510W FTP and the ramp test end power. If he did 573W for 4-min at the end of what for him would be a very long ramp test, I still figure he could have done quite a bit more for 5MP when rested.

(620 W - 573 W) * 300 s = 14,100 J

14,100 J/80 kg = 176 J/kg

So, if Indurain could produce 573 W completely aerobically, then 620 W for 5 min would have been within reach with only a very modest anaerobic work capacity. OTOH, if his power at VO2max were slightly lower - say, 550 W - then he'd need a significantly larger anaerobic work capacity (i.e., 262 J/kg) to achieve 620 W for 5 min.

I'll take a look at the Padilla et al. paper to see if I can glean more information...

rmur17 said:
Re FTP/kg outliers , I recall seeing estimates of Tony Rominger's '94 hour record as 456W and 65kg or around 7.0 w/kg (JAP 89:1522-1527 2000, "Scientific Approach to the 1-hr Cycling World Record", Padilla et al).

There were some big numbers around that time ;)

Padilla et al. were really just guessing, as they had no power, aerodynamic, or physiological data for anyone but Indurain. That's true for all of the several scientific articles that have attempted to rank hour record holders while mathematically adjusting for equipment, altitude, etc. Thus, the only really solid data that exist are for Big Mig and for Chris Boardman (which hasn't been reported in any peer-reviewed articles, but has been provided in a number of lay articles). Even then, neither Indurain nor Boardman actually used a powermeter during their rides, so you do have to make some (quite reasonable) extrapolations.
 

rmur17

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
1,066
0
0
acoggan said:
(620 W - 573 W) * 300 s = 14,100 J

14,100 J/80 kg = 176 J/kg

So, if Indurain could produce 573 W completely aerobically, then 620 W for 5 min would have been within reach with only a very modest anaerobic work capacity. OTOH, if his power at VO2max were slightly lower - say, 550 W - then he'd need a significantly larger anaerobic work capacity (i.e., 262 J/kg) to achieve 620 W for 5 min.

I'll take a look at the Padilla et al. paper to see if I can glean more information...



Padilla et al. were really just guessing, as they had no power, aerodynamic, or physiological data for anyone but Indurain. That's true for all of the several scientific articles that have attempted to rank hour record holders while mathematically adjusting for equipment, altitude, etc. Thus, the only really solid data that exist are for Big Mig and for Chris Boardman (which hasn't been reported in any peer-reviewed articles, but has been provided in a number of lay articles). Even then, neither Indurain nor Boardman actually used a powermeter during their rides, so you do have to make some (quite reasonable) extrapolations.
few other tidbits re Rominger's Hour here:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=31

From the reported 413W at 53.04 kph, I'd ballpark 460-465W at 55.3 kph ...
again just assuming the quoted numbers are correct.

IIRC, Rominger looked quite slick on an aero bike
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
9
0
rmur17 said:
few other tidbits re Rominger's Hour here:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=31

From the reported 413W at 53.04 kph, I'd ballpark 460-465W at 55.3 kph ...
again just assuming the quoted numbers are correct.

From the article:

"In fact, it was calculted (4;6) that Rominger’s corporal surface exposed to air drag was about 13% less than Indurain’s.

The difference in efficiency (aerodynamic and other) was far higher. At 53.04 km/h, Indurain developed 509.5 Watts, while at the same speed Rominger put out 413 Watts—a difference of 23%."

IOW, it appears (to me at least) that no powermeter was used, but instead they relied on estimates based on differences in body surface area between Indurain and Rominger (while in the same breath saying that Rominger had a better position!!!).
 

jws

New Member
Jan 2, 2004
189
0
0
acoggan said:
(620 W - 573 W) * 300 s = 14,100 J

14,100 J/80 kg = 176 J/kg

So, if Indurain could produce 573 W completely aerobically

Andy,

Would you say that the end of a ramp test is completely aerobic?

I thought MAP included some AWC, even though it's called Max Aerobic Power.

Jimmy
 

rmur17

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
1,066
0
0
jws said:
Andy,

Would you say that the end of a ramp test is completely aerobic?

I thought MAP included some AWC, even though it's called Max Aerobic Power.

Jimmy
not Andy but ;)

this ramp test consisted of 4-min steps with a 35W step increments and 1-min 'rest' between steps (which I assume was for lactate sampling?)

It's not even close to the BCF MAP test in which you are correct: MAP can be well over Vo2max power.
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
9
0
jws said:
Would you say that the end of a ramp test is completely aerobic?

It depends upon the protocol and the individual. With a slow rate of increase in power all of anaerobic capacity may be utilized before reaching the end of the test, such that the final power corresponds to power at VO2max. This would be more likely in someone with a low anaerobic capacity (obviously). OTOH, a more rapid rate of increase in power would likely result in achievement of a power in excess (sometimes well in excess) of power at VO2max, especially in someone with a high anaerobic capacity.
 

jws

New Member
Jan 2, 2004
189
0
0
Andy and Rick,

That makes sense, but I thought you would normally use CP, rather than MAP or the like, as a basis for calculating AWC; and even with long ramps, the end power in that test would be significantly higher than CP.
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
9
0
jws said:
Andy and Rick,

That makes sense, but I thought you would normally use CP, rather than MAP or the like, as a basis for calculating AWC; and even with long ramps, the end power in that test would be significantly higher than CP.

Note that I said "anaerobic capacity", not "anaerobic work capacity". The latter metric is a protocol-dependent estimate of the former physiological ability, so I do my best to not write one when I really mean the other.
 

bikeguy

New Member
May 31, 2004
655
1
0
acoggan said:
(620 W - 573 W) * 300 s = 14,100 J

14,100 J/80 kg = 176 J/kg

So, if Indurain could produce 573 W completely aerobically, then 620 W for 5 min would have been within reach with only a very modest anaerobic work capacity. OTOH, if his power at VO2max were slightly lower - say, 550 W - then he'd need a significantly larger anaerobic work capacity (i.e., 262 J/kg) to achieve 620 W for 5 min.

I'll take a look at the Padilla et al. paper to see if I can glean more information...

The protocol used 1 minute rest (active rest, I'm not privy to the details..) so I'm assuming some recovery of anaerobic capacity and that's why I equated ( a educated guess really) his last ramp 4 minute power to 5 MP. Considering that Indurain usually didn't win the short prologues, I'm thinking his AWC was almost non-existent. If he did have any AWC, he should have crushed everybody, just like in long TT's.

Looking at my own MAP 3 minute block continuous ramp test, I can say that my MAP is almost the same as 5 MP (I can't do any better starting off cold like that, I need to have my legs spinning). However, I have good peak power and AWC (vertical jump, sprint dash or cycling and was a ok 400 m runner) but that good AWC is not (in my case) helping in a 5 minute effort.

-bikeguy
 

postal_bag

New Member
Jun 12, 2005
214
0
0
bikeguy said:
Yes, 90%, but only if you're mostly composed of slow twitch fibers (like, in the legs and butt). Raising FTP would naturally raise your LT too. Raising 5 minute power and the whole bar? I think 5-10% is very possible for an already well trained cyclist. It may be possible to get more, if your body is that type.

-bikeguy
So I was underestimating my FTP..... or I am increasing it, faster than I can keep track of, through a steady diet of SST.:) Today I set out to do one of my weekly 90' sessions in which I try to average 91-95% FTP. After the first 30' I was at an AP of 95% (316w) so I decided to ramp it up, averaging 99% (330w) for the next 30'. At this point I realised I was poised to set a new mark for FTP, so I ramped it up again, and ended up averaging 108% (359w) for the last 30'.

So, I'm calling my new FTP 345w, for now, taking the AP for the last 60'. The AP for the whole 90' was 2w higher than my previous FTP estimate.:D

This now puts me at FTP/5MP of ~80%. Again, taking into account that I have been doing only low L4 and high L3 training for the past ~3 months, would you still say that I may be in danger of peaking to soon? I've noticed that 83-84% FTP/5MP would give a straight line on Dr. Coggan's power profile chart, if that is of any significance. I am hoping to raise my aerobic power when I start L5 focus next month, so hopefully that will make room for more FTP gains.

As I said in another post - I love "sweet spot" training!
 

bikeguy

New Member
May 31, 2004
655
1
0
postal_bag said:
So I was underestimating my FTP..... or I am increasing it, faster than I can keep track of, through a steady diet of SST.:) Today I set out to do one of my weekly 90' sessions in which I try to average 91-95% FTP. After the first 30' I was at an AP of 95% (316w) so I decided to ramp it up, averaging 99% (330w) for the next 30'. At this point I realised I was poised to set a new mark for FTP, so I ramped it up again, and ended up averaging 108% (359w) for the last 30'.

So, I'm calling my new FTP 345w, for now, taking the AP for the last 60'. The AP for the whole 90' was 2w higher than my previous FTP estimate.:D

This now puts me at FTP/5MP of ~80%. Again, taking into account that I have been doing only low L4 and high L3 training for the past ~3 months, would you still say that I may be in danger of peaking to soon? I've noticed that 83-84% FTP/5MP would give a straight line on Dr. Coggan's power profile chart, if that is of any significance. I am hoping to raise my aerobic power when I start L5 focus next month, so hopefully that will make room for more FTP gains.

As I said in another post - I love "sweet spot" training!

I think you're a real slow twitcher - which is good for road racing. :D
Considering that you've only done L3/L4 up to this point, you are obviously not at the peak. If you aren't excessively fatigued by your hard workouts, then I think you can continue. If you do become excessively fatigued, then you have a problem.

My longest time (today) on the trainer now is 30 minutes 3-4 times/wk but including a couple VO2 max intervals twice a week. I also ride 30-40 km 5 days a week on a MTB, but at low power only. This is contrast to last year, when I was busy pushing the trainer at 45-60 minutes, and rode less on the real bike.

-bikeguy
 

joemw

New Member
Jan 12, 2006
97
0
0
42
postal_bag said:
So I was underestimating my FTP..... or I am increasing it, faster than I can keep track of, through a steady diet of SST.:) Today I set out to do one of my weekly 90' sessions in which I try to average 91-95% FTP. After the first 30' I was at an AP of 95% (316w) so I decided to ramp it up, averaging 99% (330w) for the next 30'. At this point I realised I was poised to set a new mark for FTP, so I ramped it up again, and ended up averaging 108% (359w) for the last 30'.

So, I'm calling my new FTP 345w, for now, taking the AP for the last 60'. The AP for the whole 90' was 2w higher than my previous FTP estimate.:D

This now puts me at FTP/5MP of ~80%. Again, taking into account that I have been doing only low L4 and high L3 training for the past ~3 months, would you still say that I may be in danger of peaking to soon? I've noticed that 83-84% FTP/5MP would give a straight line on Dr. Coggan's power profile chart, if that is of any significance. I am hoping to raise my aerobic power when I start L5 focus next month, so hopefully that will make room for more FTP gains.

As I said in another post - I love "sweet spot" training!
Now maybe you can understand a little better my shock at someone doing 90% of FTP for three hours straight on a trainer. I'd say based on the workout above, your FTP is probably close to 370w if you found yourself pushed to the limit in a steady-state race situation where you were fresh to begin with. That of course would mean you did something more like 3 hours at 81-83% in the workout you started this thread with, which is still an excellent workout of course.
 

rmur17

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
1,066
0
0
postal_bag said:
So I was underestimating my FTP..... or I am increasing it, faster than I can keep track of, through a steady diet of SST.:) Today I set out to do one of my weekly 90' sessions in which I try to average 91-95% FTP. After the first 30' I was at an AP of 95% (316w) so I decided to ramp it up, averaging 99% (330w) for the next 30'. At this point I realised I was poised to set a new mark for FTP, so I ramped it up again, and ended up averaging 108% (359w) for the last 30'.

So, I'm calling my new FTP 345w, for now, taking the AP for the last 60'. The AP for the whole 90' was 2w higher than my previous FTP estimate.:D

This now puts me at FTP/5MP of ~80%. Again, taking into account that I have been doing only low L4 and high L3 training for the past ~3 months, would you still say that I may be in danger of peaking to soon? I've noticed that 83-84% FTP/5MP would give a straight line on Dr. Coggan's power profile chart, if that is of any significance. I am hoping to raise my aerobic power when I start L5 focus next month, so hopefully that will make room for more FTP gains.

As I said in another post - I love "sweet spot" training!
wow sounds great. I'd suspect your FTP is still over 345 though. Seeing you're used to doing 90' long efforts, why not lay it down for a 60' and find out? We could start a poll to guess your real FTP. :D

Re peaking, I had the same questions 2-yrs ago when I started making (for me) unusually good progress on a diet of UL3-LL4 work. I was doing an online TT series at the time so I was throwing in maybe 2 very hard 15-25min TT's per month as well.

I wouldn't worry about that - just keep truckin' until the gains really dry up or you start to feel burnt. That's what I was advised at the time by someone pretty knowledgable and who posts here.;)

My FTP estimate for you would be 360-365W indoors. Outdoors who knows eh?

BTW: have you tested 5MP recently? You might be surprised at that as well ...
 

postal_bag

New Member
Jun 12, 2005
214
0
0
bikeguy said:
I think you're a real slow twitcher - which is good for road racing. :D
Considering that you've only done L3/L4 up to this point, you are obviously not at the peak. If you aren't excessively fatigued by your hard workouts, then I think you can continue. If you do become excessively fatigued, then you have a problem.

My longest time (today) on the trainer now is 30 minutes 3-4 times/wk but including a couple VO2 max intervals twice a week. I also ride 30-40 km 5 days a week on a MTB, but at low power only. This is contrast to last year, when I was busy pushing the trainer at 45-60 minutes, and rode less on the real bike.

-bikeguy
Thanks for your input. It's reassuring. I'll keep track of my fatigue. It seems funny, though, since I'm only riding ~7.5 hrs a week. :)
 

postal_bag

New Member
Jun 12, 2005
214
0
0
joemw said:
Now maybe you can understand a little better my shock at someone doing 90% of FTP for three hours straight on a trainer. I'd say based on the workout above, your FTP is probably close to 370w if you found yourself pushed to the limit in a steady-state race situation where you were fresh to begin with. That of course would mean you did something more like 3 hours at 81-83% in the workout you started this thread with, which is still an excellent workout of course.
Fair enough, but it begs the question: just how fast can FTP increase? Is it possible that I have improved since starting this thread?
 

postal_bag

New Member
Jun 12, 2005
214
0
0
rmur17 said:
wow sounds great. I'd suspect your FTP is still over 345 though. Seeing you're used to doing 90' long efforts, why not lay it down for a 60' and find out? We could start a poll to guess your real FTP. :D

Re peaking, I had the same questions 2-yrs ago when I started making (for me) unusually good progress on a diet of UL3-LL4 work. I was doing an online TT series at the time so I was throwing in maybe 2 very hard 15-25min TT's per month as well.

I wouldn't worry about that - just keep truckin' until the gains really dry up or you start to feel burnt. That's what I was advised at the time by someone pretty knowledgable and who posts here.;)

My FTP estimate for you would be 360-365W indoors. Outdoors who knows eh?

BTW: have you tested 5MP recently? You might be surprised at that as well ...
The weird thing is, I tried a 1 hr TT ~2 weeks ago and ended up quiting at 40', averaging just 337w. (and yes, I zeroed the torque just before yesterday's ride) :rolleyes:

I did test 5MP last week and came up with 428w, but that was my first 5MP test ever, so I don't have any comparisons yet.
 

rmur17

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
1,066
0
0
postal_bag said:
The weird thing is, I tried a 1 hr TT ~2 weeks ago and ended up quiting at 40', averaging just 337w. (and yes, I zeroed the torque just before yesterday's ride) :rolleyes:

I did test 5MP last week and came up with 428w, but that was my first 5MP test ever, so I don't have any comparisons yet.
Do you use PMC? How did you feel going into the 1-hr effort? In any case, something was off that day ...