Why 15 sec for 5 sec peak power?...

[acoggan]

misleading information from that chart

Yes, standards such as this one are clearly misleading. That's why, e.g., places like the Australian Institute of Sport use them for talent identification purposes.

(PS: did you know that there are untrained women in Australia who can generate 18 W/kg for 10 s?)

 

[Billsworld]

Yes, standards such as this one are clearly misleading. That's why, e.g., places like the Australian Institute of Sport use them for talent identification purposes.

(PS: did you know that there are untrained women in Australia who can generate 18 W/kg for 10 s?)

I have read as much as I can find on Marty Nothstien in the past few years. Its been a while but his race weight was 220 lbs, and then in his last Olympics was 207 ( memory foggy) I am not foggy on this quote though. "I have been mesured at 2200 watts and clocked at 49mph" Now that would put him at exactly 22 watts per kg. Guessing its 5 sec power he was talking about .?I think he was good for very low 10s . Now with the smaller frontal area of these untrained aussie women, we should see a flood of women ( assuming they get to ride a few weeks on the track) doing low 10s in the 200. Someone should tell the UCI that they can combine the mens and womens sprints............. Hey that makes room to bring back the kilo

 

[WarrenG]

You shouldn't: 18 W/kg really isn't all that high, even among fattie masters such as ourselves.

Yet, when it comes time for a jump in a match sprint at a national or world championships I'm not seeing a bunch of people riding away from me-just a few guys getting 4-7 feet, and nearly all of them have rainbow stripes on their sleeves.

Ah, real world relevance...what a concept!

 

[WarrenG]

Yes, standards such as this one are clearly misleading. That's why, e.g., places like the Australian Institute of Sport use them for talent identification purposes.

And this is relevant to a racer how? We have already identified our abilities in the much more relevant manner of actually racing. 5s w/kg is far from accurate for determining how well a rider can sprint in an actual race.

(PS: did you know that there are untrained women in Australia who can generate 18 W/kg for 10 s?)

And yet they are not doing fast sprints, at least not in public. Maybe they are in hiding somewhere waiting to sweep the podiums! This is just more evidence that your w/kg mantra is of limited relevance for sprinting on the track or on flat roads.

 

[WarrenG]

Well, you're the one who asked. I figured that *you* already knew what your strengths were, but the point was that the power profile can help a newbie discover their potential strengths/weaknesses with just a few short tests, instead of trying to weed through a year's worth of race results and the multitude of circumstances therein.

A well-rested 5s w/kg number in training is not especially relevant to a jump during most races, and even less relevant for the 15-20 second sprint that may decide the outcome in a race.

IF you really want to learn ahead of time whether you can sprint well in a race you could be doing a much more relevant test, but alas, those numbers are not on that chart.

Yesterday in my first criterium of the day I started my sprint with my HR already within 3 bpm of MHR. How relevant do you think my 5s w/kg was? Here's a hint, two guys who outjumped me are guys I can always outjump in a match sprint.

 

[acoggan]

Yet, when it comes time for a jump in a match sprint at a national or world championships I'm not seeing a bunch of people riding away from me-just a few guys getting 4-7 feet

First, you do realize how much additional power it takes to open that gap, don't you?

Second, wouldn't you agree that if they weren't opening that gap on you, you'd stand a better chance of beating them?

 

[frenchyge]

Yesterday in my first criterium of the day I started my sprint with my HR already within 3 bpm of MHR. How relevant do you think my 5s w/kg was? Here's a hint, two guys who outjumped me are guys I can always outjump in a match sprint.

I don't think the test's value is in predicting what numbers you should see during a race, but rather in helping determine what 'type' of racer you might be inclined towards.

 

[acoggan]

And this is relevant to a racer how?

'cause it illustrates how others with a strong sport science bend (in this case, an entire national federation) realize the importance of being able to accurately quantify specific physiological abilities. Indeed, if you'd seen Dr. Gardner's presentation at ACSM you'd understand that measuring peak power is only the tip-of-the-iceberg of what the AIS is into...for example, how many other NGBs do you suppose are talking to people in the world of finance and hydrogeology to learn more about mathematical modeling approaches than might be applied to cycling?

And yet they are not doing fast sprints, at least not in public.

Uh, do the names Eadie, Dayka, Meares, etc., not mean anything to you?

 

[doctorSpoc]

...(PS: did you know that there are untrained women in Australia who can generate 18 W/kg for 10 s?)

that's actually way better evidence for WarrenG's point than WarrenG has presented...

i did an undergrad in Chemistry and one of the most important rubrics you learn is that knowing what you DON'T know is just as important as knowing what you DO know, in some cases even more so.. if frames what you can say and how you can say it.. some times you need to look at your numbers/model and if they don't mesh with reality then you know that there is gap in your understanding/knowledge.. you don't assume that your eyes are lying to you... it's like the aeronautics engineers declaring that bumble bee's can't fly when anyone with eyes can see that they do.

 

[acoggan]

A well-rested 5s w/kg number in training is not especially relevant to a jump during most races

Really? Then please explain how is it that you are apparently able to accurately judge the 5 s power of your competition based on their jump relative to yours? That is what you have claimed, remember?

Yesterday in my first criterium of the day I started my sprint with my HR already within 3 bpm of MHR. How relevant do you think my 5s w/kg was? Here's a hint, two guys who outjumped me are guys I can always outjump in a match sprint.

That's undoubtly because they are aerobically fitter than you are, i.e., they have a higher functional threshold power. Regardless, you can't say that your neuromuscular power isn't relevant, because even in your fatigued state you still would have smoked me.

 

[acoggan]

that's actually way better evidence for WarrenG's point than WarrenG has presented...

How so? That's 18 W/kg for 10 s by an untrained women.. Maximal power, of course, falls off quite rapidly beyond the first few seconds of exercise, and men, on average, produce more power than women. In this context, Warren's 18 W/kg (as a man) for only 5 s isn't all that impressive.

 

[acoggan]

I have read as much as I can find on Marty Nothstien in the past few years. Its been a while but his race weight was 220 lbs, and then in his last Olympics was 207 ( memory foggy) I am not foggy on this quote though. "I have been mesured at 2200 watts and clocked at 49mph" Now that would put him at exactly 22 watts per kg. Guessing its 5 sec power he was talking about .?

Probably not, since I'm the one who established 5 s as the de facto standard (if there is such a thing). In any case, Nothstein may have been Olympic and World Champion, but the current crop of world class sprinters are clearly more powerful...for example, Sean Eadie has been measured at producing 2600 W (at ~100 kg), and some other English-speaking riders have topped 2400 W (all for 1 s/a single crank revolution).

 

[WarrenG]

First, you do realize how much additional power it takes to open that gap, don't you?

I don't know, but I can guestimate based on my numbers and those of somone like Rich Voss, who I raced in the final at Nat's in 2004. Maybe it's 2-3w/kg, but all he was getting was 4-6 feet during that 5 seconds. So, a significant difference in w/kg but in actual performance it wasn't much.

Second, wouldn't you agree that if they weren't opening that gap on you, you'd stand a better chance of beating them?

Well, in Rich's case I did finish ahead of him in 2 out of 2 rides, but that was because of other, more relevant factors and other measurements one could do WRT sprinting. Also, if one guy gets a gap, or is allowed to get a gap, there are some nice ways to take advantage of that situation. It is not the jump (5s power) that wins the race. Several other factors are more important.

 

[WarrenG]

I don't think the test's value is in predicting what numbers you should see during a race, but rather in helping determine what 'type' of racer you might be inclined towards.

For races other than match sprinting or team sprint you'll be much better off if you look at other things. For example, your average power during a 15 second sprint at the end of an interval slightly above threshold, or experimenting in some races.

The reason(s) is that your ability to produce 5s power when well-rested is quite different from your ability to sprint within a race. Keep racing, you'll see.

 

[WarrenG]

Uh, do the names Eadie, Dayka, Meares, etc., not mean anything to you?

A weak dodge on your part. Sure, the best riders must be able to achieve this "standard" but reaching that standard clearly does not prove they will be succesful in racing. You said untrained women were doing 10s at 18w/kg. IF that was actually important for actual racing in the real world we would see them racing well, and in other countries too. But since that measure is so poorly correlated with actual racing performance with people of medium to large builds we do not see them. The real world confirms the irrelevance of your 5s w/kg mantra.

 

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by WarrenG
A well-rested 5s w/kg number in training is not especially relevant to a jump during most races

Really? Then please explain how is it that you are apparently able to accurately judge the 5 s power of your competition based on their jump relative to yours? That is what you have claimed, remember?

Read what I wrote. From well-rested my 5 s power is better than theirs. This is proven by the fact that I can outjump them in match sprints. At the end of this (criterium) race they outjumped me. Same goes for many situations in a points race. This shows that 5s power from well-rested is not a reliable indicator of 5s performance within most races.

I'm not saying 5s power isn't important, but the situations in which you measure/evaluate it is important if you are interested in your racing performance.

 

[WarrenG]

That's 18 W/kg for 10 s by an untrained women.. Maximal power, of course, falls off quite rapidly beyond the first few seconds of exercise, and men, on average, produce more power than women.

This is still more evidence of why such a standard is not important-it does not translate well to the real world.

In this context, Warren's 18 W/kg (as a man) for only 5 s isn't all that impressive.

And yet, I can prevail over a guy when he's over 20w/kg who has rainbow stripes on his arms. I'm sure glad I'm not listening to your opinions on the matter! And guess what Rich and I talked about after our rides... improving one's ability over 15-20 seconds, and I shared with him my most important training session for doing that.

Probably not, since I'm the one who established 5 s as the de facto standard (if there is such a thing).

I am relieved to hear that the 5s standard is yours. My coach, who I am sure is one of many, knows that this number is of limited utility and that other power numbers are far more important for sprinting.

A proper chart would include the more relevant numbers for sprinting so that a person like Frenchgye could more accurately evaluate his probable strengths and weaknesses before he had a chance to learn more about them within real races. Your listing of 5s w/kg serves as a distraction from what is more important in this area.

 

[acoggan]

I don't think the test's value is in predicting what numbers you should see during a race, but rather in helping determine what 'type' of racer you might be inclined towards.

Or as I've written over and over again: if you want to know how well you do in races, go race your bike. Nonetheless, understanding the underpinnings of one's performance can be extremely useful when attempting to improve it.

 

[acoggan]

This is still more evidence of why such a standard is not important-it does not translate well to the real world.

Non-sequitur.

And yet, I can prevail over a guy when he's over 20w/kg who has rainbow stripes on his arms.

Ah - now you DOadmit that Rich can generate 20 W/kg for 5 s? So why all the posturing to the contrary earlier in this thread?

A proper chart would include the more relevant numbers for sprinting

Only if the goal of such a chart were to attempt to predict performance (versus to help delineate the physiological bases of performance).

 

[acoggan]

You said untrained women were doing 10s at 18w/kg. IF that was actually important for actual racing in the real world we would see them racing well

Give 'em some time...the women that the AIS selected this way have only been racing for a couple of years. (BTW, others sports "down under", e.g., skeleton, have already had success using this type of approach.)