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?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?rmur17 said:I figure big Mig could do perhaps 620W
Reality check ; 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.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.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?
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.
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
few other tidbits re Rominger's Hour here: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.
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.
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
not Andy butjws 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
jws said:Would you say that the end of a ramp test is completely aerobic?
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.
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...
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'.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
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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!
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.bikeguy said:I think you're a real slow twitcher - which is good for road racing.
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
Fair enough, but it begs the question: just how fast can FTP increase? Is it possible that I have improved since starting this thread?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.
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)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.
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 ...
Do you use PMC? How did you feel going into the 1-hr effort? In any case, something was off that day ...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)
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.