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

[acoggan]

Top speed is limited by Watts:CdA

...with CdA correlating reasonably closely with height, and hence secondarily with mass. Thus, W/kg is a better predictor of speed against wind resistance than W alone, even though mass, per se, doesn't directly influence wind resistance.

 

[yzfrr11]

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

I train with my powermeter 100% of the time. But I have to tell you, it is useless during a race - you must race against the other riders. Perhaps a solo breakaway is an exception, but that is not racing - its gambling. The data may be useful post-race however.

Here is my quote for the day "Read the race, not your powermeter"

 

[fergie]

I train with my powermeter 100% of the time. But I have to tell you, it is useless during a race - you must race against the other riders. Perhaps a solo breakaway is an exception, but that is not racing - its gambling. The data may be useful post-race however.

Here is my quote for the day "Read the race, not your powermeter"

It is not useless. In my last race I could see first hand that I was in trouble at the start because I was way over threshold pace. If the race didn't slow it self naturally I would have had to stop taking turns. I was also able to better measure my attacks in the bunch.

However more useful is the post race analysis where I can better see what happened, why it happened, plan for a better race the next week (month, year) and train accordingly.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[doctorSpoc]

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.

it's both actually... + frontal area

but have you taken a close look at your 5s W chart? my speed graph usually has a peak of 50-55km/hr during that 5s... if you don't think that at 50km/h aerodynamics is the major resistance to acceleration then we are going to have to agree to disagree... this means that probaly for at least 1/2 of that 5s aerodynamics has a greater effect than does weight. just a guess.. but weight might be dominant for the 1st 10-15 meters.. but after that aerodynamic will dominate more and more 'til the end of the interval. [edit] in fact in many cases that 1st 10-15m might not even be within the max 5s W area..

 

[acoggan]

if you don't think that at 50km/h aerodynamics is the major resistance to acceleration then we are going to have to agree to disagree...

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between correlation and causation (see my last follow-up to frenchyge).

 

[acoggan]

Perhaps a solo breakaway is an exception, but that is not racing - its gambling.

Maybe for you, but not for me.

But seriously, aren't all tactical decisions "gambling"? That is, you weigh the factors involved and attempt to draw conclusions regarding the probability of success of every option available to you. Depending on the individual and the situation, a solo breakaway may provide the highest probability of success, even if it isn't necessarily high. Conversely, there are times when you really have no viable options available to you (as happened to me as the end game played out at the recent Missouri state road race).

 

[WarrenG]

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'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.

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

You have not actually done any of these things with proficiency in the real world. I have, many, many times. You're wrong about all of them. I used to be very good for the first 5-10s in a sprint from complete, or near complete rest. I learned in mass-start races and in match sprints both at the local level and at nat's that this was an almost useless ability for sprinting. I have seen countless other riders learn this lesson too.

If I had followed your line of thinking I would have stayed at the point where I was getting 6-7th placings at Nat's in the match sprint.

15s power is far more important for sprinting performance than 5s power. If there must be only one column related to sprinting performance on the chart it should be the more relevant factor, 15s power. To list 5s instead is a distraction for a person trying to assess/improve their sprinting performance.

 

[WarrenG]

It is not useless. In my last race I could see first hand that I was in trouble at the start because I was way over threshold pace. If the race didn't slow it self naturally I would have had to stop taking turns. I was also able to better measure my attacks in the bunch.

However more useful is the post race analysis where I can better see what happened, why it happened, plan for a better race the next week (month, year) and train accordingly.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Newbies have different needs for their feedback. Probably by the time you've done 30+ races you'll have a better handle on your abilities at the moment based on feedback other than your PM, and the role of tactics in how hard you must go at that moment.

 

[doctorSpoc]

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between correlation and causation (see my last follow-up to frenchyge).

i understand correlation..

what i'm getting at is "significance"... so what if i can correlate a factor to a result. if that factor does not make a reasonable/significant contribution to the result then in practical terms, who cares?

x = A + B

A = y, B = y/100000000

both A and B vary directly (are correlated) with x, but at the end of the day do i really care about B?

coming from the other side of this and putting aside neuromuscular power's contribution to sprinting potential... if it is really neuromuscular power/acceleration that you are after (where i agree that maxW/kg would be what you want) then is this methodolgy really a good one... given this methodolgy... 15s sprint to find 5s max power (don't know if this is your prescribed methodology?) given the fact that speeds can be reached such that factors such as frontal area, CdA become significant and even dominant and would tend to muddy the results during such an interval (i.e. maybe still correlated but differently/unevenly correlated given different individuals attributes unrelated to neuromuscular power). why wouldn't a test that starts from the 0 to say 25-50 meters be even a better test of neuromuscular power since the 'muddying' factors would be minimized? and the recorded period would begin from right from 0 and not start from some point later in the interval related to the highest ave power for 5s during a 15s interval... a point where other factors would tend to make this not a 'pure' reading of neuromuscular power.

 

[doctorSpoc]

...15s power is far more important for sprinting performance than 5s power. If there must be only one column related to sprinting performance on the chart it should be the more relevant factor, 15s power. To list 5s instead is a distraction for a person trying to assess/improve their sprinting performance.

this is the point... all the other columns mean something in real, practical terms to the rider's potential or current ability but this one.. as i said earlier it may be of great interest to exercise physiologists but if the chart is to help people assess their potential or current ability in racing it's seems pretty useless in practical terms.

 

[acoggan]

You have not actually done any of these things with proficiency in the real world.

And Steven Hawkings has never left Earth's gravity...but I know I'd take his word over that of your run-of-the-mill astronaut when it comes to issues of celestial navigation, etc.

I have, many, many times. You're wrong about all of them. I used to be very good for the first 5-10s in a sprint from complete, or near complete rest. I learned in mass-start races and in match sprints both at the local level and at nat's that this was an almost useless ability for sprinting. I have seen countless other riders learn this lesson too.

Riiigggghhhhtttt...that's why people like my wife, who can generate as much power for the duration of your typical sprint as those competing in the match sprint at worlds, are such great sprinters.

If I had followed your line of thinking I would have stayed at the point where I was getting 6-7th placings at Nat's in the match sprint.

My "line of thinking" is simply that knowing your maximal 5 s power gives you better insight into an important (not sole) determinant of your sprinting ability, i.e., your neuromuscular power, than knowing your average power over longer durations, where things like fatigue tend to muddy the picture. What you choose to do with this information is up to you.

15s power is far more important for sprinting performance than 5s power. If there must be only one column related to sprinting performance on the chart it should be the more relevant factor, 15s power.

That might be true if the purpose of the table was to best predict performance...but it's not. Rather, the purpose of the tables is to help people better understand the physiological determinants of their performance...which average power over 15 s doesn't help as much with, since it is dependent on multiple factors, not just neuromuscular power.

To list 5s instead is a distraction for a person trying to assess/improve their sprinting performance.

Try telling that to those in Australia who deconstructed Anna Meares performance ability on an even more "micro" level (i.e., measuring even more frequently), and in the process learned things that helped her win gold in Athens...

 

[frenchyge]

(as happened to me as the end game played out at the recent Missouri state road race).

Awww... man. Had I known you would be there, I'd have tracked you down and introduced myself. I had teammates in that race, but as a KS resident I did not feel like making the 2hr trek from KC.

 

[Billsworld]

it's both actually... + frontal area

but have you taken a close look at your 5s W chart? my speed graph usually has a peak of 50-55km/hr during that 5s... if you don't think that at 50km/h aerodynamics is the major resistance to acceleration then we are going to have to agree to disagree... this means that probaly for at least 1/2 of that 5s aerodynamics has a greater effect than does weight. just a guess.. but weight might be dominant for the 1st 10-15 meters.. but after that aerodynamic will dominate more and more 'til the end of the interval. [edit] in fact in many cases that 1st 10-15m might not even be within the max 5s W area..

Those are my thoughts as well. I think that if you are jumping from 25-27 mph the wind resistance might be an even higher % of that 5 secs. Frankly when I look at training goals I dont overlook any one component of the sprint. Warren thinks that 15-20 secs is a better indicator of sprint ability than 5 secs and I think thats probably true. During last season and this , I have been eating a bodybuilding diet to be as lean as I can. When its all said and done,by seasons end I should have a much higher watts per kg than I do today.Will it help? I hope it helps some phase of the race. If its a 1% advantage I will take it. I dont overlook anything from 1-60 secs in watts , watts per kg, bodymass, bodyfat or body position........... I watched a video of a Japanese kerin rider and he led almost a full lap with his chest on the stem..wow!IMO thats where the speed is . Ride the rivet with your face on the stem. Just dont hit any bumps

 

[WarrenG]

i understand correlation..

what i'm getting at is "significance"...

You mean significance of 5s w/kg, like where a guy has a 5s w/kg that is worse than an untrained woman but can still win a National Championship in match sprint, racing with a guy who wins a second World Championship a month later?

 

[WarrenG]

Riiigggghhhhtttt...that's why people like my wife, who can generate as much power for the duration of your typical sprint as those competing in the match sprint at worlds, are such great sprinters.

Once again you have demonstrated the shortcomings of relying on w/kg. So what matters more, average power of 18w/kg or 1400 watts? Where are all these great sprinters who can do 18w/kg but can't do 1400+ average power?

My "line of thinking" is simply that knowing your maximal 5 s power gives you better insight into an important (not sole) determinant of your sprinting ability, i.e., your neuromuscular power, than knowing your average power over longer durations, where things like fatigue tend to muddy the picture. What you choose to do with this information is up to you.

If you want to talk about what is most relevant for the real world application you should stick to what is most relevant for the real world application. That you are content with something else that is far less relevant is indicative of your lack of understanding about the real world application.

Originally Posted by WarrenG
To list 5s instead is a distraction for a person trying to assess/improve their sprinting performance.

Try telling that to those in Australia who deconstructed Anna Meares performance ability on an even more "micro" level (i.e., measuring even more frequently), and in the process learned things that helped her win gold in Athens...

Read what I wrote. I said listing 5s INSTEAD of 15s is a distraction. I too look at many areas of my sprint, 1s, 5s, 10s, 15,s 20s, and 25s. My real world experience has taught me which of these are the most important, and how to test each of them in a relevant manner.

 

[acoggan]

i understand correlation..

what i'm getting at is "significance"... so what if i can correlate a factor to a result. if that factor does not make a reasonable/significant contribution to the result then in practical terms, who cares?

x = A + B

A = y, B = y/100000000

both A and B vary directly (are correlated) with x, but at the end of the day do i really care about B?

Sure, if it significantly increases your predictive ability...which knowing somebody's mass does, since (again) mass correlates with height, and height correlates with CdA.

coming from the other side of this and putting aside neuromuscular power's contribution to sprinting potential... if it is really neuromuscular power/acceleration that you are after (where i agree that maxW/kg would be what you want) then is this methodolgy really a good one... given this methodolgy... 15s sprint to find 5s max power (don't know if this is your prescribed methodology?)

Hunter is the one who proposed testing in this manner, but the fact of the matter is that, if the inertial load is in the correct range, you'll reach the optimal cadence for generating maximal power quite quickly, i.e., before significant fatigue has occurred. Whether you then "pull the plug" after collecting 5 s worth of data, or keep sprinting for another 5-10 s, is irrelevant.

given the fact that speeds can be reached such that factors such as frontal area, CdA become significant and even dominant and would tend to muddy the results during such an interval (i.e. maybe still correlated but differently/unevenly correlated given different individuals attributes unrelated to neuromuscular power). why wouldn't a test that starts from the 0 to say 25-50 meters be even a better test of neuromuscular power since the 'muddying' factors would be minimized?

In fact, I measure my 5 s power by doing a short standing start in a low gear, e.g., 39 x 17. However, this really has nothing at all to do with starting speed, CdA, etc., as you can (and I do) generate the same power starting from a high speed in a large gear, e.g., down a hill (if you cost/cruise long enough before hand to restore PCr stores).

and the recorded period would begin from right from 0 and not start from some point later in the interval related to the highest ave power for 5s during a 15s interval... a point where other factors would tend to make this not a 'pure' reading of neuromuscular power.

Again, I agree that you're probably more likely to achieve your true maximal neuromuscular power if you perform the sprint as you describe. However, the key point here is not the length of the sprint or the speed at which it starts/ends, but that 1) you are adequately rested when you start sprinting, and 2) you "get on top of the gear" very quickly.

 

[frenchyge]

it's both actually... + frontal area

but have you taken a close look at your 5s W chart? my speed graph usually has a peak of 50-55km/hr during that 5s... if you don't think that at 50km/h aerodynamics is the major resistance to acceleration then we are going to have to agree to disagree...

Technically, aerodynamic drag is like friction, in that it resists *velocity,* and not *acceleration.* I understand that those terms get kinda mixed together in all of our discussions of power, which includes a velocity component.

Yes, I am familiar with my 5sec power chart. At 50km/h, the acceleration is almost nil because almost all my power is being used just to overcome the aerodynamic drag. As I said previously, unlike acceleration, top-speed is limited by watts:CdA. My problem at that point is one of technique -- namely that I just can't produce the same force on the pedals at 120+rpm as I could while they were stationary -- since I'm not even able to produce the same power at high speeds as I was down in the 'powerband'.

why wouldn't a test that starts from the 0 to say 25-50 meters be even a better test of neuromuscular power since the 'muddying' factors would be minimized? and the recorded period would begin from right from 0 and not start from some point later in the interval related to the highest ave power for 5s during a 15s interval... a point where other factors would tend to make this not a 'pure' reading of neuromuscular power.

C'mon, the test is "go all out for 15 sec and find the highest 5sec avg power." If the highest 5sec are the *first* 5sec, then fine.

This is getting silly.

 

[acoggan]

Once again you have demonstrated the shortcomings of relying on w/kg. So what matters more, average power of 18w/kg or 1400 watts? Where are all these great sprinters who can do 18w/kg but can't do 1400+ average power?

There are a lot of fast women who fall in this category...

If you want to talk about what is most relevant for the real world application you should stick to what is most relevant for the real world application. That you are content with something else that is far less relevant is indicative of your lack of understanding about the real world application.

Ok, here's a relevant "real world" application: my wife was elite national champion in the pursuit in 2002, and would have placed in the top 8 (maybe top 5) at Worlds that year if she'd had the chance to go. Becky Conzelman was elite national champion in match sprint and 500 m in 2004, and was (IIRC) 11th at Worlds in 2005. As measured using the SRM Pro track crank, their average power in W is essentially the same, but Angie does a 500 m TT in ~40 s and Becky does it in ~37 s. So, how do you explain this if absolute power is such a good predictor of performance? The answer, of course, is that W/kg provides more insight into performance than just W alone...

Continuing on that theme: my wife could win local 1/2 races in a drag race sprint, but didn't stand a chance of winning a sprint against the likes of Laura Van Gilder, Tina Pic, etc. Indeed, she was the person you'd look to to provide the leadout at races such as the Liberty Classic, not to receive it. Yet, you wouldn't know this based on her power as measured over 15 s (i.e., ~1000 W), as that's long enough for her high anaerobic capacity to begin to shine through. With that high of average power, why couldn't she sprint against the very best? Simple: her maximal neuromuscular power was only slightly greater than her 15 s power, meaning that 1) she couldn't get off the line quickly enough to do a fast 500 m TT, and 2) she couldn't accelerate quickly enough to compete at the highest level in road sprints.

 

[Billsworld]

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

Second, it's CoggAN, not Coggin.

I know you didnt. Iwill use AC then if thats ok. I grew up with dyslexia, and typing is a chore to begin with.

 

[frenchyge]

Warren thinks that 15-20 secs is a better indicator of sprint ability than 5 secs and I think thats probably true.

Yes, it probably is, since that would also include a measure of a person's ability to generate high pedal force at high cadences (ie, sprint technique). The 5sec test probably isolates a person's neuromuscular power or twitchy-ness more, but who cares about that?

Does anyone remember Andy saying that the Power Profile was intended to be used to identify physiological characteristics and inclinations, rather than as a performance predictor? The crux of the whole discussion seems to be that this screwdriver is ill-suited for pounding nails.