I suspect many of you here use velo-fit.com's monod.xls ( http://velo-fit.com/articles/monod.xls ) when calculating Critical Power. I do, too, but it always seemed a bit odd to me that the file first calculates power-to-weight ratio (PWR, in W/kg), multiply the PWR by duration to get Work-to-weight ratio (WWR, in J/kg), then finds the best fit slope (=CP) for the duration-WWR pair points, and finally makes power predictions for various durations by multiplying the CP by "assumed weight for predictions" (I'm consciously omitting the part calculating AWC for simplicity).
So in essence, the file predicts that you will produce more power if you put on some weight?
Aren't one's body weight and power production ability largely independent from each other (barring sickness, weight loss from muscular atrophy, etc)? Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to try to lose weight in an attempt to improve on one's PWR.
It seems to me a little, if not much, better to find the best fit slope from duration-work pair points (not duration-WWR pair points), then divide the slope by the "assumed weight for predictions" to get a power-to-weight ratio (=final CP value).
Does this make sense to you?
TIA,
Ken
So in essence, the file predicts that you will produce more power if you put on some weight?
Aren't one's body weight and power production ability largely independent from each other (barring sickness, weight loss from muscular atrophy, etc)? Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to try to lose weight in an attempt to improve on one's PWR.
It seems to me a little, if not much, better to find the best fit slope from duration-work pair points (not duration-WWR pair points), then divide the slope by the "assumed weight for predictions" to get a power-to-weight ratio (=final CP value).
Does this make sense to you?
TIA,
Ken