Power to Weight ratio

Airwave

This morning i borrowed my mates powertap wheel.It's the first time i've used any sort of power meter,apart from just sprinting to see my max power.So i'm not that up on power for training.I did a 1hr test on our local training loop.I averaged 251watts&my weight is 67.3kg.I probably went off a little too hard for the first mile or two but settled down after that.Although i did tire for the last 15mins,probably not fully recoverd from doing 100miles+ on thursday.But i don't expect i could go a lot harder.I have'nt done any TTs or much intense training for the last 5-6weeks just lots of (junk)miles.So i worked out for an hour my power to weight ratio is 3.7/kg is that right or is there more to it than that?

LJAR

look here:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-profiling.aspx

Read, learn, enjoy. :-)

sub55

Simple question but not quite so simple answer.

First thing you`ve got to recognise is , the figures apply to you and dont really cross reference with anybody else`s.
How you arrive at your figures does`nt really matter ,as long as the protocol is the same each and every time. This is why scientific testing is normally carried out on a static bike. This makes the reproduction of protocol possible, where it is practically impossible
on the open road.
The protocol procedure would normally be set down by your coach, or in my case the PhD students and can vary, depending on what they are trying to prove. That said , the power aspect is usually derived from a ramp test and is your max power just before you collapse in a heap on the floor. This is where your test is wrong. As you`ve used your average power.
The easiest way to improve your power to weight ratio, is by losing weight. By doing this , you`ll probably find your max power output also reduces. But the power to weight ratio will increase.
Out of interest , my figures that are calculated for me at the local uni goes something like this.
462w 5.1 w/kg
396w 5.4 w/kg
460w 5.9 w/kg
These tests were carried out , roughly at 6 monthly intervals and although they dont mean much to you , when combined with my vo2 max figures and LT figures , the boys in the uni can work out ,if what i had been doing is working and what i should be doing to try and improve.

Airwave

Thanks subb55,i thought there was more to it.I'll be diong the same test at regular intervals from Jan onwards.So i have a benchmark,i know how difficult it is to keep all the variables roughly the same.But i should get a better idea once i've done a few of the same runs.I make quiet detailed notes about all my training as far as you can with HR.
I'm quiet skinny all ready being 5'9"&147lbs allthough i don't know what my body fat% would be.I'm not going to reach your standard but i'm going try to improve on the last couple of years TT times as much as i can.

Pokerface

Airwave wrote:

So i worked out for an hour my power to weight ratio is 3.7/kg is that right or is there more to it than that?

From the figures you posted, this is correct for your FTP.

Pokerface

sub55 wrote:

Simple question but not quite so simple answer.

First thing you`ve got to recognise is , the figures apply to you and dont really cross reference with anybody else`s.
How you arrive at your figures does`nt really matter ,as long as the protocol is the same each and every time. This is why scientific testing is normally carried out on a static bike. This makes the reproduction of protocol possible, where it is practically impossible
on the open road.
The protocol procedure would normally be set down by your coach, or in my case the PhD students and can vary, depending on what they are trying to prove. That said , the power aspect is usually derived from a ramp test and is your max power just before you collapse in a heap on the floor. This is where your test is wrong. As you`ve used your average power.
The easiest way to improve your power to weight ratio, is by losing weight. By doing this , you`ll probably find your max power output also reduces. But the power to weight ratio will increase.
Out of interest , my figures that are calculated for me at the local uni goes something like this.
462w 5.1 w/kg
396w 5.4 w/kg
460w 5.9 w/kg
These tests were carried out , roughly at 6 monthly intervals and although they dont mean much to you , when combined with my vo2 max figures and LT figures , the boys in the uni can work out ,if what i had been doing is working and what i should be doing to try and improve.

Are these figures your MAX power to weight ratios? Or your FTP power to weight ratio?

sub55

Pokerface wrote:

sub55 wrote:

Simple question but not quite so simple answer.

First thing you`ve got to recognise is , the figures apply to you and dont really cross reference with anybody else`s.
How you arrive at your figures does`nt really matter ,as long as the protocol is the same each and every time. This is why scientific testing is normally carried out on a static bike. This makes the reproduction of protocol possible, where it is practically impossible
on the open road.
The protocol procedure would normally be set down by your coach, or in my case the PhD students and can vary, depending on what they are trying to prove. That said , the power aspect is usually derived from a ramp test and is your max power just before you collapse in a heap on the floor. This is where your test is wrong. As you`ve used your average power.
The easiest way to improve your power to weight ratio, is by losing weight. By doing this , you`ll probably find your max power output also reduces. But the power to weight ratio will increase.
Out of interest , my figures that are calculated for me at the local uni goes something like this.
462w 5.1 w/kg
396w 5.4 w/kg
460w 5.9 w/kg
These tests were carried out , roughly at 6 monthly intervals and although they dont mean much to you , when combined with my vo2 max figures and LT figures , the boys in the uni can work out ,if what i had been doing is working and what i should be doing to try and improve.

Are these figures your MAX power to weight ratios? Or your FTP power to weight ratio?

Strictly speaking neither.
The figures are based on my max power output at the end of a ramp test.
That consisted of a 3 min base line pedaling , followed by a ramp increase in power output of 30w every min.
All this goes to show ,that it does`nt really matter what the figures are as they only relate to you and it does`nt really matter what the protocol is as long as its the same every time.
The only real way to gage your fitness and potential performances is through measuring your lactate tolerance. But stabbing yourself in your finger every 30 seconds and having a lab technician count the mM, obviously is`nt viable outside of the lab.
having the figures is one thing, being able to interpret them and suggest improvements in training regimes is another thing entirely.

a_n_t

Airwave wrote:

Thanks subb55,i thought there was more to it.

Actually there isn't.

You were right the first time. Average power for an hour to determine FTP and divide by weight. Simple.

Murr X

sub55 wrote:

The only real way to gage your fitness and potential performances is through measuring your lactate tolerance. But stabbing yourself in your finger every 30 seconds and having a lab technician count the mM, obviously is`nt viable outside of the lab.
having the figures is one thing, being able to interpret them and suggest improvements in training regimes is another thing entirely.

Strongly disagree that the only real way to gauge fitness is by lab testing. In fact an educated power meter user (of which there are plenty) will be able to track progress as well as anybody else. Power is everything and interpreting power data is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination though for every competent PM user there are several that do not have a clue.

With a PM it is really very easy to know which way performance is going and a MUCH better training tool than going to a university for testing every so often.

FTP Or at least durations of 20mins - 1hour really is the best way of gauging fitness for road racing and is very simple and easy to test.

Murr X

a_n_t

sub55 wrote:

the figures apply to you and dont really cross reference with anybody else`s.

The point of stating your figures as watts/kg is so you can cross reference them with anybody else! Which is why the majority use FTP.

Murr X

a_n_t wrote:

Airwave wrote:

Thanks subb55,i thought there was more to it.

Actually there isn't.

You were right the first time. Average power for an hour to determine FTP and divide by weight. Simple.

Correct, and knowing FTP is much more important than many realize. Like I said above its not rocket science.

Murr X

Pokerface

sub55 wrote:

All this goes to show ,that it does`nt really matter what the figures are as they only relate to you

Don't the figures matter across ALL riders - in the sense that my w/kg vs your w/kg are very important if we are racing each other? Especially on a hilly course?

amaferanga

sub55 wrote:

Simple question but not quite so simple answer.

First thing you`ve got to recognise is , the figures apply to you and dont really cross reference with anybody else`s.
How you arrive at your figures does`nt really matter ,as long as the protocol is the same each and every time. This is why scientific testing is normally carried out on a static bike. This makes the reproduction of protocol possible, where it is practically impossible
on the open road.
The protocol procedure would normally be set down by your coach, or in my case the PhD students and can vary, depending on what they are trying to prove. That said , the power aspect is usually derived from a ramp test and is your max power just before you collapse in a heap on the floor. This is where your test is wrong. As you`ve used your average power.
The easiest way to improve your power to weight ratio, is by losing weight. By doing this , you`ll probably find your max power output also reduces. But the power to weight ratio will increase.
Out of interest , my figures that are calculated for me at the local uni goes something like this.
462w 5.1 w/kg
396w 5.4 w/kg
460w 5.9 w/kg
These tests were carried out , roughly at 6 monthly intervals and although they dont mean much to you , when combined with my vo2 max figures and LT figures , the boys in the uni can work out ,if what i had been doing is working and what i should be doing to try and improve.

I disagree with most of what you say.

One important feature of using power to train with is being able to set training zones. All the literature I've read use percentages of FTP to do this, but you don't appear to know what your FTP is or at least you don't think it's important. Knowing your power at VO2max doesn't help you to set training zones. It also makes more sense to use FTP to access the effectiveness of your training.

Sorry, but I'd say the OPs testing is pretty much spot on and would encourage him not to take any notice of your advice.

Pokerface

amaferanga wrote:

One important feature of using power to train with is being able to set training zones. All the literature I've read use percentages of FTP to do this.

OK - I might be wrong on this, but I think working out your zones from your VO2 max is actually MORE precise than trying to do it from your FTP.

My coach has been hounding me to get into the lab to do a proper test so he can work out my zones. Essentially, you want to know at what level you can ride before the lactate will build up in your legs.


Like I said - I may have this wrong but I think I'm close.


EDIT - I was thinking of lactate threshold. But LT and VO2 max numbers can be sued to calculate zones very precisely.

jibberjim

Pokerface wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

One important feature of using power to train with is being able to set training zones. All the literature I've read use percentages of FTP to do this.

OK - I might be wrong on this, but I think working out your zones from your VO2 max is actually MORE precise than trying to do it from your FTP.

Zones are a pretty meaningless thing really, there is no actual threshold, so there really are no zones, there's just a range of intensities which you can maintain for differing lengths of period. Inventing zones based on one reference point is pretty pointless, whatever that reference point is - however I can't see any reason to anchor it to power at VO2max, peoples ability to maintain a particular percentage of the vo2max power is highly variable, and more importantly is trainable - so your zones based on VO2max power would change.

i.e. Do no VO2max training at VO2max and a lot of FTP (1 hour effort) training and your FTP as a percentage of power VO2max will likely increase - meaning your zones will want to increase too, however if you anchor them to power at VO2max they won't.

If you do pick one anchoring point, one in the middle of the spectrum (FTP) is better than one at the top (power at VO2max) makes more sense to me.

Lab testing has a number of problems compared to the road - it's very non-specific to your actual form of riding - the cooling is different, the inertia seen at the pedals is different, the body position is different (in that it never changes, real riding you move out of the saddle, make your self more aero etc.) And most people find they produce very different power on an indoor trainer compared to the road - there's no reason to believe that the numbers derived in such a situation scale the same to outdoor.

Personally zones derived wholly from functional tests make more sense - need to know what intensity threshold is - ride for an hour all out - need to know what intensity VO2max power is - ride for 5 minutes all out.

Pokerface wrote:

My coach has been hounding me to get into the lab to do a proper test so he can work out my zones. Essentially, you want to know at what level you can ride before the lactate will build up in your legs.

Even if you do want that - doing a lab test will tell you at what level you can ride in a lab before lactate will build up - it doesn't necessarily say anything about the road. (Personally I'm also completely unconvinced that having an arbitrary lactate concentration makes any difference at all to your training benefit. Why should 4 mmol/L be relevant?

Lab testing will you tell things, functional testing will tell you other things. For tracking training progress, I would say functional testing is a lot better, after all it is testing exactly the things you're using to be successful in your cycling rather than a proxy.

I agree with Amaferanga that the OP's protocol is a good one for tracking change - it's likely important to keep the course constant too.

Sub55's results are interesting, one is of course is his fluctuating weight (90 / 73 / 78), but don't actually really tell us an awful lot, losing 17kg's suggests that the early test was from quite an untrained state, few trained people can lose 17kg, and the 2nd test actually stands out more as a suspect test - failed early due to illness? protocol limitations, calibration or something else? If I saw that result from the information available I'd be suggesting that a re-test would be needed - for lab testing of course that's rather difficult, for functional testing, you just test again a few days later.

Airwave, firstly don't limit yourself in what level you think you can get to, most people should be able to get to well above 4 w/kg, so you still have a lot of improvement to come, please don't limit it by the thought that you can't.

Pokerface

^---- I don't understand any of that :oops:

a_n_t

jibberjim wrote:

And most people find they produce very different power on an indoor trainer compared to the road .

Thats true, best 2x20 I've done on the turbo is 230W, last test on the road back in July was 280W!

Airwave

jibberjim wrote:

[Airwave, firstly don't limit yourself in what level you think you can get to, most people should be able to get to well above 4 w/kg, so you still have a lot of improvement to come, please don't limit it by the thought that you can't.

Yep your right i need to set some targets.I think 4 w/k is the min.I would've been around that in the TT season.I've lost about 2mins on my regular 19mile training loop(do it at least once a week at @85-90%max HR) since the end of Aug.
I was very surprised how easy it is to go over your threshold when climbing.If nothing else using the powertap has shown me to just tone it down a bit going over hills during TTs.

Alex_Simmons/RST

sub55 wrote:

That said , the power aspect is usually derived from a ramp test and is your max power just before you collapse in a heap on the floor. This is where your test is wrong. As you`ve used your average power.

Actually time trial tests measuring average power for TTs of 16km - 40km or equivalent durations are a common form of scientific testing of cycling performance.

Average power and power to weight ratios for given durations are excellent performance markers.

Maximal Aerobic Power tests (which are similar to what you describe) are also useful.

Indeed having both is most helpful since the relationship between them provides additional insight into a rider's state of fitness and can suggest what the next training focus might need to be.