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

[fergie]

Did you let the chart tell you how to race?

Yes.

Thanks to a bit analysis of my last few races I was able to determine that every time I attacked I was going way into the red zone and was easily caught. Thanks to this I knew I had to pick my attacking moments better and to go at a more steady pace and my attacks were far more successful.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[NM87710]

AC, Just my 2 peso's here but this whole discussion just shows that it's impossible to win an argument with the village idiot. Even if it was pouring rain like in DC today and I said it was raining outside the idiot would disagree while standing under my power umbrella all nice and dry...

If one doesn't believe in power training and it's developing principles then they should move on rather than being a hater - it's just not healthy dude.

 

[WarrenG]

If one doesn't believe in power training and it's developing principles then they should move on rather than being a hater - it's just not healthy dude.

I've used a PM during almost every ride for more than 4 years and my coach has employed the use of PM's going back farther than that. He has a sports science education, is an M.D. as well, and has 20+ years experience coaching riders from juniors to grand tour winners. So what could we know about using PM's?

Stay tuned.

 

[WarrenG]

Yes.

Thanks to a bit analysis of my last few races I was able to determine that every time I attacked I was going way into the red zone and was easily caught. Thanks to this I knew I had to pick my attacking moments better and to go at a more steady pace and my attacks were far more successful.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

How many races have you done in the last 2 or 3 years? How many races since you started using a PM?

 

[fergie]

14 races in the last year, 7-8 with a Power Meter. I always knew I took off too hard but now I can quantify it and can practice in training choosing a better power output to ensure my breaks stick.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I've used a PM during almost every ride for more than 4 years and my coach has employed the use of PM's going back farther than that. He has a sports science education, is an M.D. as well, and has 20+ years experience coaching riders from juniors to grand tour winners. So what could we know about using PM's?

Stay tuned.

I'm curious Warren: how do you and Max use your power meter (is it a PT or are you still using the Polar)?

I feel that it'd be interesting to know, for the readers, how your (well technically Max's) approach may differ from Andy's or my own approach. I'm speculating that it would be radically different from Andy's!

With all due respect to you, I'd personally rather hear from Max. Is there any chance you can get him here? It'd be great to have the three of us present some ideas for everyone, and to share our experiences, and how we may differ from each other. Don't you think that'd be a fantastic resource for everyone?

Ric

 

[WarrenG]

I'm curious Warren: how do you and Max use your power meter (is it a PT or are you still using the Polar)?

I feel that it'd be interesting to know, for the readers, how your (well technically Max's) approach may differ from Andy's or my own approach. I'm speculating that it would be radically different from Andy's!

With all due respect to you, I'd personally rather hear from Max. Is there any chance you can get him here? It'd be great to have the three of us present some ideas for everyone, and to share our experiences, and how we may differ from each other. Don't you think that'd be a fantastic resource for everyone?

Ric

I agree that it would be a fantastic resource for everyone. For Max, he is extremely busy these days, moreso now because of his preparation for his new assignments in Utah. As for how you could get his direct input (it won't be in a forum like this), for now I will have to say, "stay tuned". Max is very much in favor of education for riders and coaches and sharing what he knows. He will be doing even more of this in Utah. He knows that I'm trying to help with that education within some online forums but his style is much more gentle than mine(!), which is partly why he doesn't want to enter the fray in forums like this one.

As for my/his/our approach being radically different from Andy's, I doubt that. Maybe it depends on how you would define radically different. I do know that Max is very much the real world approach to things like data and ex phys studies and he sometimes comments (not specifically about Andy) that he wishes there were more ex phys people with a stronger background in the applied side (real world applications) of ex phys.

Max will use real world experience to evaluate the usefulness, or lack of it for a study, data, new training idea, etc., but sometimes there is no perfect sportscience explanation for why something works in the real world. An example of this is SFR or SE training. Max doesn't have a perfect, complete explanation for why it works nor do his colleagues who are pro team coaches, but from real world experience they do know that it works.

Probably some areas of difference would be how HR is used (it is almost always a consideration, and based on lactate levels and then on-the-road experience), cadence (for slight differences in the objectives for muscular vs aerobic), and the precision of training prescriptions. Virtually every minute of my training above ~200 watts is spelled out to the minute. There is no, "2-hour tempo ride". For example, here is today's training for me...
2 hours
4 x 6' 250W at 100 rpm on flat
4 x 8‘ hills at 330W/rest 6 ‘
3 x 10” sprints on flats/rest 4 ‘

You can read many articles (VeloNews) recently where Levi is talking about some of the benefits of getting very precise training prescriptions. I think the main benefit, at least based on my experience, is that because Max knows exactly what I'm doing, he can very accurately assess my response to training, and very accurately prescribe just the right amount of training without going over my weekly/monthly limits of fatigue.

The numbers for each interval also lend themselves very well to progressive overloads. For example, a minute or two may be added to a similar interval next week, or one more interval, or 10 watts, etc. Sometimes I feel like a puppet on the strings because he knows what my training and fatigue response will be so much better than I do.

Since the discussion is partly about the utility of a chart of power values and watts/kg I'll mention that Max has many numbers like this in his head, and he considers w/kg when talking about climbing, but absolute power (along with general body size) for discussion about the flats.

I use a PT now and for a sprint training it is much better than the Polar. For someone interested in sprinting I could not recommend the Polar at all. I have seen no real surprises going from PT to Polar, but the numbers are much higher and one can see more subtle changes in power within a sprint. For measurements during steady-state intervals I have seen no appreciable difference in the two PM's.

 

[acoggan]

AC, Just my 2 peso's here but this whole discussion just shows that it's impossible to win an argument with the village idiot.

Or as a friend of mine puts it: "all you get from wrestling in the mud with pigs is muddy." As I tell him, though: I like getting muddy!

 

[Billsworld]

In fairness to both Warren and AC neither is the village idiot. The watts/power training is a perfectly fine way of applying science to bicycle training and Warren doesnt dispute that . Warrens stance has been that watts per kg is a small fraction of what determines the winner in a a race and specificly a sprint. The battle is over 5 sec power and its influence on a 200tt and or match sprint. Without putting too many more words in Warrens keypad, my guess is that he would agree that 5 sec power has some infuence on a 200 and AC just thinks it a much larger component. Warren races track and road all the time, is the current Masters Nats sprint Champ, and rides with plenty of national level trackies on a daily basis. With the contributions that AC makes to this forum, it is understandable to be a fan and take his side in all matters, but the practical experience that Warren brings to the table shouldnt be dismised in defense of AC as a matter of course. Alot can be learned from both

 

[acoggan]

Without putting too many more words in Warrens keypad, my guess is that he would agree that 5 sec power has some infuence on a 200 and AC just thinks it a much larger component.

Sorry, but I don't think this summary is correct. My point is that 5 s power is an excellent indicator of maximal neuromuscular power, and that looking at power over longer durations, during which fatigue occurs/fatigue resistance plays a role, just tends to muddy the waters. (The same is true for tests that rely on other durations intermediate to those used in the power profiling tables, e.g., changes in 20 min power can be hard to interpret because both anaerobic and aerobic energy metabolism contribute.) After all, if you want to know how fast you can do a flying 200 m TT, all you need is a stopwatch...measuring somebody's power in this context is just a way of getting at the physiological underpinnings of such a performance, and so your metrics should be as "pure" as possible to aid their interpretation.

 

[acoggan]

Warren races track and road all the time, is the current Masters Nats sprint Champ

Uh, no: that title belongs to Rich Voss, who also won the 45-49 division in 2001 and 2002. Gibby Hatton won in 2003, and Warren won in 2004.

 

[WarrenG]

Uh, no: that title belongs to Rich Voss, who also won the 45-49 division in 2001 and 2002. Gibby Hatton won in 2003, and Warren won in 2004.

Placings relevant to sprinting, in 2005 I was on the team that won the National Championship for team sprint 135+ in 2005. I did the first lap, which we had to do twice within 8 minutes due to a mechanical during our second lap of the first ride. Also in 2005, I was 3rd place to Rich and Gil at Nat's in the sprint and at the World Championships I was 7th place in the sprint, and 4th place in Team Sprint, riding with Rich and Vic Williams.

 

[WarrenG]

...My point is that 5 s power is an excellent indicator of maximal neuromuscular power, and that looking at power over longer durations, during which fatigue occurs/fatigue resistance plays a role, just tends to muddy the waters. ...measuring somebody's power in this context is just a way of getting at the physiological underpinnings of such a performance, and so your metrics should be as "pure" as possible to aid their interpretation.

Which is why a physiologist would like your inclusion of 5s power, instead of what is more relevant to a bike racer, something like 15s power, and probably not from complete rest. If the chart is for bike racers this choice of 5s over 15s is a distraction from what is more important for sprinting in races.

 

[Billsworld]

Sorry Acoggin,....... I have learned alot from both of you . Warren has helped me very much with track racing and training specific to sprinting. Some of your papers such a quadrant analysis have been a huge help to me also. I dont always agree with warren, and I tend to agree with you on the subject of SE training. That said , calling Warren the village idiot is lame. Thanks Both

 

[doctorSpoc]

Sorry, but I don't think this summary is correct. My point is that 5 s power is an excellent indicator of maximal neuromuscular power, and that looking at power over longer durations, during which fatigue occurs/fatigue resistance plays a role, just tends to muddy the waters. (The same is true for tests that rely on other durations intermediate to those used in the power profiling tables, e.g., changes in 20 min power can be hard to interpret because both anaerobic and aerobic energy metabolism contribute.) After all, if you want to know how fast you can do a flying 200 m TT, all you need is a stopwatch...measuring somebody's power in this context is just a way of getting at the physiological underpinnings of such a performance, and so your metrics should be as "pure" as possible to aid their interpretation.

Dr Coggan, I, in no way want to disrespect you here.. but i have to say.. on this one I really feel you are just off the mark... i hear what your saying and agree, but my reaction is really... SO WHAT! as Blissworld has said you have made great contributions to the understanding of sport physiology and have as well brought this understanding to the man in the street which is commendable and i think we all very much appreciate this..

but if maximal neuromuscular power can't be closely correlated with sprinting ability (as you, yourself stated earlier: "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)") and if by inference improving it can't be closely correlated with improved sprinting ability then why should any of us really care that much about this number? you as a sport physiologist might care, but 'boot on the ground' looking for method's of improving our performance... why should we care? though all of these page of responses back on forth I have not seen an answer to this.. why should we care??

then when you add the W/kg and this number's significance is even further diluted... as you say untrained women tested in Australia have equal to greater for 10s W/kg as well as smaller frontal area and CDA compared to warren's (world class sprinter) 5s W/kg and yet we don't see untrained women beating men at the worlds or even cooed sprints with men and women (trained ones) at the worlds??

so again... why should we care about this number (especially when it is taken on a per Kg basis) that on the face of it seems to have about as much significance as the price of tea in china to my cycling/sprinting ability, potential etc.? and training to improve it would seem to have equally little significance.

 

[acoggan]

Sorry Acoggin,....... I have learned alot from both of you . Warren has helped me very much with track racing and training specific to sprinting. Some of your papers such a quadrant analysis have been a huge help to me also. I dont always agree with warren, and I tend to agree with you on the subject of SE training. That said , calling Warren the village idiot is lame. Thanks Both

First, I'm not the one that called Warren "the village idiot".

Second, it's CoggAN, not Coggin.

 

[acoggan]

Which is why a physiologist would like your inclusion of 5s power, instead of what is more relevant to a bike racer, something like 15s power, and probably not from complete rest. If the chart is for bike racers this choice of 5s over 15s is a distraction from what is more important for sprinting in races.

Understanding the factors that determine performance is never a distraction, as it tells you how to best go about improving said performance. Indeed, you've made this exact same argument, the only difference being that you prefer to rely on an eyeball assessment of somebody's jump to determine whether it is a strength or a weakness, whereas I believe that a more quantitative approach (i.e., measuring 5 s power) is better.

 

[acoggan]

if maximal neuromuscular power can't be closely correlated with sprinting ability (as you, yourself stated earlier: "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)") and if by inference improving it can't be closely correlated with improved sprinting ability then why should any of us really care that much about this number? you as a sport physiologist might care, but 'boot on the ground' looking for method's of improving our performance... why should we care? though all of these page of responses back on forth I have not seen an answer to this.. why should we care??

You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote - take a look at that sentence again:

"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)."

That is, contrary to Bill's attempt to summarize this thread, Warren and I do not disagree that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself" (although, in fact, he has argued the exact opposite in the past, favoring blood lactate testing over simply measuring power in the field). That said, there is a high correlation between maximal neuromuscular power (i.e., power for a few seconds measured in W/kg) and sprinting performance...it just isn't the only factor, and more importantly, these points are not the source of our disagreement (again, as Bill attempted to conclude).

then when you add the W/kg and this number's significance is even further diluted... as you say untrained women tested in Australia have equal to greater for 10s W/kg as well as smaller frontal area and CDA compared to warren's (world class sprinter) 5s W/kg and yet we don't see untrained women beating men at the worlds or even cooed sprints with men and women (trained ones) at the worlds??

You do, however, find non-cycling women who can match somebody like Warren when it comes to a standing start (as based on data presented by the AIS and typical elite master team sprint times). IOW, neuromuscular power (in W/kg) is a VERY important determinant in your ability to accelerate, as it must be based on simple physics. It's also a key determinant of your flying 200 m time, and your jump - and hence your performance - in a head-to-head match sprint, but less so here than for a standing start because of the impact of other factors (e.g, tactics). Finally, it's also a determinant of how well you will do in a sprint at the end of a mass start race, but less so than in the other two situations due to "dilutional" factors such as fatigue resistance, etc.

so again... why should we care about this number (especially when it is taken on a per Kg basis) that on the face of it seems to have about as much significance as the price of tea in china to my cycling/sprinting ability, potential etc.? and training to improve it would seem to have equally little significance.

Because your neuromuscular power in W per kg IS an important determinant of your sprinting ability.

 

[frenchyge]

then when you add the W/kg and this number's significance is even further diluted... as you say untrained women tested in Australia have equal to greater for 10s W/kg as well as smaller frontal area and CDA compared to warren's (world class sprinter) 5s W/kg and yet we don't see untrained women beating men at the worlds or even cooed sprints with men and women (trained ones) at the worlds??

It's mass, rather than CdA, which provides the resistance to acceleration.

Top speed is limited by Watts:CdA, and *technique*, which is why untrained fast-twitch cyclists aren't able to beat seasoned sprinters in events involving high-speeds. In a co-ed competition, the women are going to have a lower output wattage, even though their CdA might be marginally lower, so I wouldn't place my money there either.

 

[whoawhoa]

Which is why a physiologist would like your inclusion of 5s power, instead of what is more relevant to a bike racer, something like 15s power, and probably not from complete rest. If the chart is for bike racers this choice of 5s over 15s is a distraction from what is more important for sprinting in races.

Uh, making and using a chart that represented every situation in bike racing would be pretty tough, wouldn't it? Because if you want a chart for 15s power after x minutes at y wattage, etc, etc, then you need many, many more data points or the chart will be hopelessley limited.

On the other hand, you can use the power profiling chart to get a pretty good idea of your abilities (using all the columns, not just the 5s w/kg). And then, of course, race to get a more specific idea and confirm earlier ones.