profesional cyclists

cyclingpeakssoftware.comprofile.htmlOpen ↗

nath1 said:

Hi all, what is the average and max power output for a pro cyclist, lets say for instance a an average pro (who of course is still gifted) to people like Armstrong, Ulrich , basso and alike. I have for a while now tried to find out these figures but cyclists rarely seem to publish them, of course this is to perhaps protect the advantage, or to hide a weakness. thanks in advance. nath1

ms-se.comabstract.00005768 200601000 00023.htm;jsessionid=Eb4X26sX6y24toGaTtUIDIEeBZBbXm5utnWGJBbREzZlqm3v8PbOpen ↗

There are plenty of estimates of the power outputs of the riders doing just the Alpe D'Huez portion of a stage in the TdF for Pantani, Armstrong if you google around a bit.

nath1 said:

Hi all, what is the average and max power output for a pro cyclist, lets say for instance a an average pro (who of course is still gifted) to people like Armstrong, Ulrich , basso and alike. I have for a while now tried to find out these figures but cyclists rarely seem to publish them, of course this is to perhaps protect the advantage, or to hide a weakness. thanks in advance. nath1

375-425 watts for an hour is very common among the better pros. Obviously if you're smaller and can do 410-425 like Garzelli for example, then you may be winning the Giro. If you're larger like Cioni and do 400-425 watts you might be high on GC but not at the very top.

I don't think the pros really care that much what the public knows about their power numbers (unless it's just prior to a major event) because the guys racing beside them already know what they are capable of doing in races, at least as much as power numbers could predict.

nath1 said:

Hi all, what is the average and max power output for a pro cyclist, lets say for instance a an average pro (who of course is still gifted) to people like Armstrong, Ulrich , basso and alike. I have for a while now tried to find out these figures but cyclists rarely seem to publish them, of course this is to perhaps protect the advantage, or to hide a weakness. thanks in advance. nath1

avg world class numbers (like top 20 GT contenders)

avg mass: 68 kg
MAP: 486 watts
relative VO2 max: 79 ml-kg-min
1 hr power: 421 watts
2 hr (roughly) power: 364 watts

Indurain's numbers:
79 kg
VO2 max: 80 ml-kg-min
MAP: 573 watts
1 hr power: 505-510 watts
2 hr power: 450 watts

All of above from the 1999 study by Padilla, Mujika, Orbananos and Angulo.

-Bikeguy

I'd guess that an average pro would have something like 10% less power than the number in the Padilla study. So 440 watts MAP, 380 w 1 hr power and approx 330 w 2 hr power.

I think that the average level of competition has risen a bit since 1999 though.

-Bikeguy

So taking these figures, lets say the max output,is it something that will eventually stop going any higher, even thought the athelete is progresively training towards a higher output or is it a matter of finding knew techniques that will enable the body to become more powerfull. Also do you think that there is a genitical cieling as for how much power an athelete will ever be able to accomplish. thanks nath1.

nath1 said:

So taking these figures, lets say the max output,is it something that will eventually stop going any higher, even thought the athelete is progresively training towards a higher output or is it a matter of finding knew techniques that will enable the body to become more powerfull. Also do you think that there is a genitical cieling as for how much power an athelete will ever be able to accomplish. thanks nath1.

Just because a rider may be near their potential/ceiling for their MAP or threshold power doesn't mean they don't have anything else they want to try to improve. There are at least several other aspects of fitness that the rider may want to improve. There is always the delicate balance of deciding what aspect should receive training time and energy. This would be affected by the needs of the racer for their goal events, how much weight they could take off vs. the power they would have after that weight reduction, team goals, injuries, racing schedule, etc..

nath1 said:

So taking these figures, lets say the max output,is it something that will eventually stop going any higher, even thought the athelete is progresively training towards a higher output or is it a matter of finding knew techniques that will enable the body to become more powerfull. Also do you think that there is a genitical cieling as for how much power an athelete will ever be able to accomplish. thanks nath1.

Do you mean "genetic limitations" to what a particular athlete is capable of? I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about would dispute that. Or, are you talking about limitations to what any human, at any time or place, is capable of?

There is certainly such a thing as "genetic limitations". Training allows us to asymptotically approach those limitations, and most people who aren't able to live like professional athletes for years on end never get very close to those limitations. However, if you've been training full-time, with competent guidance in your sport for, say, 10 years, you're probably training in the hopes of holding on to your form, not improving.

As for what any human, at any time might be capable of: the human body is a physical machine, and it is only capable of so much. We might keep on improving, but the pace of those improvements must someday slow. I'll just go out on a limb and claim that no human on a bicycle will ever be able to produce, say, 1000W for 1 hour.

The most promising areas of application of new knowledge to make the human machine faster are in techniques that, in competition, would be considered cheating: ergogenic drugs, and blood and gene manipulation. After all, we know much more about how those interventions can affect performance every year, while the search for a "miracle training regime" is widely acknowledged to be a dead end.

It's interesting, though, that we may still have quite a ways to go in terms of wringing the performance out of the unaided human machine. Some exercise phys. types took the highest ever seen human values for VO2Max, lactate threshold, and running economy, and figured the "perfect marathon" would be something right around 2hrs. That would be a mammoth beating of Khalid Khannouchi's world record of 2:05:38. Since cycling is less widely practiced than running, the margins for possible improvement could be higher.

Thanks for that , great post a really educated answer just what i was looking for. Without starting a post on drugs in this sport, do you think that is were the real advances are made? Because each year times get quicker in races, records are broken.

kmavm said:

Do you mean "genetic limitations" to what a particular athlete is capable of? I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about would dispute that. Or, are you talking about limitations to what any human, at any time or place, is capable of?
There is certainly such a thing as "genetic limitations". Training allows us to asymptotically approach those limitations, and most people who aren't able to live like professional athletes for years on end never get very close to those limitations. However, if you've been training full-time, with competent guidance in your sport for, say, 10 years, you're probably training in the hopes of holding on to your form, not improving.

As for what any human, at any time might be capable of: the human body is a physical machine, and it is only capable of so much. We might keep on improving, but the pace of those improvements must someday slow. I'll just go out on a limb and claim that no human on a bicycle will ever be able to produce, say, 1000W for 1 hour.

The most promising areas of application of new knowledge to make the human machine faster are in techniques that, in competition, would be considered cheating: ergogenic drugs, and blood and gene manipulation. After all, we know much more about how those interventions can affect performance every year, while the search for a "miracle training regime" is widely acknowledged to be a dead end.

It's interesting, though, that we may still have quite a ways to go in terms of wringing the performance out of the unaided human machine. Some exercise phys. types took the highest ever seen human values for VO2Max, lactate threshold, and running economy, and figured the "perfect marathon" would be something right around 2hrs. That would be a mammoth beating of Khalid Khannouchi's world record of 2:05:38. Since cycling is less widely practiced than running, the margins for possible improvement could be higher.

nath1 said:

Thanks for that , great post a really educated answer just what i was looking for. Without starting a post on drugs in this sport, do you think that is were the real advances are made? Because each year times get quicker in races, records are broken.

Times don't improve much each year. Training is an experimental process that is more or less being continually refined. Coaches and athletes learn a bit more each year that helps the athletes get better.

Something that a coach experimented with 10 years ago got refined over time and with several, to many athletes. When the method is applied with more precision now the effects tend to be even better, or at least reliably good. So maybe the method that works really well for a certain aspect of fitness is so reliable that the coach/athlete can turn their experiments to improving a different aspect of fitness, and so on. Also, one or a few coaches figure something out and eventually that gets spread around to more coaches and athletes, so the body of knowledge is continually growing.

There is also technology that helps make training more effective.

nath1 said:

Thanks for that , great post a really educated answer just what i was looking for. Without starting a post on drugs in this sport, do you think that is were the real advances are made? Because each year times get quicker in races, records are broken.

But then again, many many records for human performance from before the dawn of blood-boosting still stand.

I was just addressing the hypothetical question of where the huge opportunities for improvement lie, in the abstract. I'm not claiming that drugs/etc. are the only way forward, just that they offer the most "bang for the buck"; we're learning more all the time, making new chemicals, etc. The opportunities for progress in training are questions of refinement; the opportunities for changing the internal biochemical environment of an exercising human are more "game-changing."