Why 15 sec for 5 sec peak power?...
- Thread starter Terry Ferguson
- Start date
Probably true, but since no one (that I'm aware of, anyway) has done the work to collect data on those other things across broad populations of cyclists, I'm not sure how one would make a useful comparison of their abilities against the prospective competition. OTOH, we have Andy's chart.WarrenG said:
because when you put your evidence together with Blissworld's comments:acoggan said:
i.e. "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....."
it shows quite conclusively and convincingly that 5s power numbers DON'T accurately reflect reality in terms of real world sprinting performance... that's...how so!
like i said, bumble bees DO fly inspite of some's insistance that they don't.
it's an urban legend that they declared that they can't fly but it's not an urban legend that up until very recently they had no idea how it is that they fly... bumble bees flap there wings such that they create vortexes on the top side of their wing and this is likely what accounts for the missing lift... but still not really understood...acoggan said:BTW, this is an urban legend...as any true Vulcan would know!
doctorSpoc said:
I see - I thought you meant it was evidence that many men can't generate 20 W/kg for 5 s.
Anyway, I've never claimed that there was a high correlation between 5 s power and actual sprint performance (either flying 200 m TT or head-to-head sprinting). Clearly, however, having an adequately high neuromuscular power is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for elite level performance in such an event, just as having an adequately high VO2max is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for elite endurance performance.
(BTW, the AIS was searching for women to ride the 500 m TT, since, e.g., tactics play litte if any role in such a race.)
doctorSpoc said:
And like I said, it is an urban legend that anybody with any real knowledge of aerodynamics claimed otherwise. I'm therefore not sure why you insist on repeating your reference to this myth.
acoggan said:
That 20 w/kg was what I could estimate for him in August-September of 2004, not June of 2006. Rich has been working on improving his ability to sprint fast for longer because this is relevant for him to win more Nat's championships and more World championships. IME, and that of my coach, it is very difficult to even maintain one's 5s ability while trying to improve one's ability over a duration of 15-20s.
i'm treating the "bumble bee's can't fly" story is an allegory.. a short story that demonstrates a moral... not literally.. a lesson to scientist that may hold their numbers, hypotheses and even well established theories too close to heart, even when it can be demonstrated that maybe they need to be adjusted or qualified etc.acoggan said:
like when you see a see something and it's so obvious that it is complete BS.. i would use the example of The Blair Witch Project (what a piece of shite!).. but a bunch of people are just going with the crowd bestowing great virtues on it when they really don't know why... their goal is really to prevent themselves from looking foolish or "in the know" etc. instead of going through this whole explanation, one could simply lean over to their friend and simply say "the emperor has no clothes" and it says it all... you need to know the story of The Emperor has no Clothes, but if you do it can make conveying of a complex idea very efficient.
speaking of star trek, there was even an episode (Next Generation.. i.e. no Spock) where Pickard was stranded on a planet with an alien who's language was completely based on allegories and he had to learn how to communicate with him..
even though i am a star trek fan.. doctorSpoc relates to the "The Funk Doctor Spoc" aka Redman, of the Wu Tang Clan... the artist I was listening to when i registered... not my favourite artist or anything, just the one that happened to be playing when i registered.
holy tangent... sorry.
frenchyge said:
Depends who you ask.
Did you let the chart tell you how to race? If you did then you may have vastly underestimated your ability to sprint at the end of a race. You would have been better off not having seen the 5s column of the chart until you fully understood the relevance, and lack of relevance of that column to your actual racing abilities.
Go do ten races above cat 5 and experiment with the range of your possible strengths and weaknesses. Then look at your changes in racing abilities over the season, and several seasons and correlate those racing changes with changes during certain, relevant parts of your training.
Free yourself from the constraints of irrelevant data and irrelevant opinions and you may find yourself getting better results.
I haven't seen any freely shared, as Andy has done with his, anyway. If you know of one, please send a link.WarrenG said:
Well, there are 3 other columns that should be looked at also. If you're trying to say that 'since the 5s column doesn't fit real world sprints, the chart is useless,' then you're missing at least 75% of the picture. Fatigued sprints are still going to be a combination of neuromuscular power, AWC, and VO2max -- and technique.WarrenG said:
I fully expect that when I have your wealth of racing experience, that my reliance on Andy's chart will decrease. In the mean time, I believe the insight gained from the chart has given me a leg-up on my peers (even those that have been racing longer than I have) in both tactics and self-guided training, and I would whole-heartedly endorse its use for anyone who is considering getting into racing, or who has not seen the success they would expect based on their training. In my first full year of racing I have 2 Cat 5 wins (out of 2 races), and 1 win, one 2nd, two 3rds (1 tt), one 4th (tt), three top-10's, and a couple DNP's in the Cat 4 ranks, so I'm a pretty satisfied customer so far. Doesn't mean I'll stop looking for ways to tweak things further, however (hmmm..... training manager?WarrenG said:
).Thanks again, Andy.
frenchyge said:Well, there are 3 other columns that should be looked at also. If you're trying to say that 'since the 5s column doesn't fit real world sprints, the chart is useless,' then you're missing at least 75% of the picture. Fatigued sprints are still going to be a combination of neuromuscular power, AWC, and VO2max -- and technique.
I'm not saying anything about the rest of the chart. Using the 5s column to determine your ability to sprint, especially when it is based on w/kg, is a really poor start for one's understanding of their ability to sprint in a race. It is a distraction that should be avoided in order to give yourself your best chance of figuring out how to be succesful in a racing sprint on the road.
You have mentioned most of the factors relevant for a sprint, so why would you care about your 5s power from rest? It is a tiny part of what is relevant. Look elsewhere (the things you mentioned) for what IS relevant.
frenchyge said:
If you have done even 10 races in your category the chart is near useless except for entertainment. You should already be aware (assuming you're not too distracted by the chart and are paying attention in your races) of what areas of your ability need to be improved to give yourself the best chance for success in your races. If you are not certain what your actual weaknesses are then ask a knowledgeable person, who should ask you to describe your ability relative to your competitors during various racing scenarios.
The reason is because the abilities of your actual competitors are far more relevant than the numbers from the chart. You do know how each of those numbers got into the chart, right? It is not actual data from cat 5's and 4's and 3's. And when you consider flat races those numbers are even less relevant because they're w/kg.
Ask yourself the right questions. Why did I lose the race? What are my important weaknesses relative to the other competitors in my races at my current level, and perhaps the level above that? What can I do to improve on those weaknesses and how will my strengths be affected by the training I'll do to improve those weaknesses?
WarrenG said:
Oh, the ol' eyeball test again, eh Warren?
The question is, why do you persist on depending on guesstimates when Rich himself can tell you that his 5 s power is (was) over 20 W/kg.WarrenG said:
Good for him, and you're probably right. However, this just illustrates the usefulness of knowing the extent to which one's performance is limited by neuromuscular power, vs. anaerobic capacity, tactics, etc. That is, since Rich clearly has more than adequate neuromuscular power (as determined using a powermeter, not by "eyeballing it"), then it's logical that he look elsewhere to see where he might best be able to improve. Now some - although probably not all - might be able to figure that out for themselves just by, e.g., comparing times, etc., a powermeter (plus the power profiling chart) definitely helps speed up this "learning curve".
WarrenG said:
Again, why rely on estimates and opinions when those who use powermeters and know how to interpret the data know this for a fact? (As those who attended Dr. Gardner's presentation in Denver saw for themselves.)
acoggan said:
Racing answers the questions far more accurately. People go from cat 5 to 3 in a season all the time, without looking at your chart. Apparently they have found the relevant information elsewhere. Distractions hinder one's potential progress.
WarrenG said:
From http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp
"In theory, tables of standards for power output for different durations could be generated by simply collecting data on a large number of cyclists of widely varying ability. However, it is highly unlikely that any coaches or other individuals would have access to a sufficiently large database for this approach to be very accurate. As an alternative, estimates of power output for riders of differing abilities could be derived from actual performance, e.g., in time trials - this approach, however, requires making somewhat tenuous assumptions regarding body mass, CdA, etc., and is particularly complex when applied to shorter duration, non-steady-state events (e.g., kilometer). I therefore used a third approach, which was to "anchor" the upper and lower ends of each range based on the known performance abilities of world champion athletes and untrained persons, respectively. The advantage of this approach is that it enhances the validity of comparisons across event durations, e.g., a "world class" power output should be equivalent regardless of whether the duration over which it is measured is 5 s or 1 h. The resultant values for intermediate performances were then cross-checked against available data* to assure that this approach resulted in valid guidelines."
*See the bottom of the above webpage for acknowledgements...to which I need to add a few other people, especially Dave Jordaan.
WarrenG said:
And others of equivalent ability remain mired in the lower categories, simply because they haven't figured out their relative strengths and weaknesses, and how to apply them when racing. But even if you do know what you are or are not good at, and have risen as far up the pecking order as you're going to go, the table is still useful for tracking different components of fitness, esp. how the respond to different types of training.
acoggan said:Oh, the ol' eyeball test again, eh Warren?
Try to remain relevant. The race performance is what shows that whatever a person's 5s power was at that moment, it wasn't enough to create a winning margin. If I were a rider's coach and they were losing because they were getting outjumped we'd try to improve their jump. I would not need to look at everybody's power files to know if the jump was a problem. Watch the race. Ask the right questions.
acoggan said:
That is where you are wrong and this is part of why your observations about sprinting are too often way off the mark for relevance. "Eyeballing it", that is observations relative to his actual competitors during actual races are more accurate and far more relevant than comparing some numbers where guys like you who don't even do the racing sit around trying to figure out how many, many numbers all come together to form an actual racing performance. It doesn't really matter what his numbers are if he can't do what he needs to do.
You say that Rich, or rider x has more than adequate nm power. More than adequate for what? If it was higher he might be able to win because of that. Is mine adequate? Your chart won't tell us what our potential is for nm power. Using your chart, what is my potential for nm power? What is it for Billsworld? What is it for Frenchgye? What would be adequate for each of us? How will you know what is adequate?
And even if we had 2 more w/kg during 5s we still would not know whether we would be successful with that until we raced because YOU and your chart do not know what our needs are for 5s power, and 10s power, and 15s power, and 20s power, and 25s power, and all the little combinations of those various abilities, to prevail over our competitors in our races. But, if we each described our racing abilities as they are during races a person could in fact offer relevant advice about whether or not their nm power was adequate for our races. Real world stuff, you know.
acoggan said:
Puh-lease, Are we talking about ill-informed coaches and cat 4/5's here? Racing performance highlights strengths and weaknesses far better than your chart ever will, especially in light of the facts that you have not obtained real world data for each of the numbers you have put into the chart, nor was the data from in-race performances, and you have left out some columns that would be more useful than what you did include (5s w/kg). A good coach will see this chart for what it is, and that it'ss not as useful as what they already know from extensive real world experience.
There is no accounting in your chart for all of the relevant factors, nor their relationships to each other (you could help alleviate this by encouraging people to do the tests not from rest), and the 5s column and its relevance for a person's sprint performance is particularly poor. It is a distraction. You should have used a more relevant parameter like 15s power or even 10s power, and if you are going to include 5s w/kg then you should include a disclaimer about why a 5s w/kg effort from rest is a poor indicator for sprinting performance during races.
acoggan said:
That's tactics, motivation, discipline, and elementary coaching advice. You don't need a chart based on world-class riders to give you general guidelines when you can get more specific information for yourself about what you're lacking when you get dropped on a hill, or dropped from the pack on a flat, or left behind in a sprint.
acoggan said:
Once a person has a year or so with their PM they can track their own changes, maybe on a simple spreadsheet, and with racing they can see how the changes in their training relate to changes in their racing. This is basic stuff.
I find it interesting how many riders discard their powermeters either entirely or at least during races once they realize that their own racing performances relative to their competitors are a most accurate means of determining the effectiveness of training methods. Eliminating distractions.
